Confirmation of an elaborate scheme to dumb down the population, starting with Slashdot, by making everything politically correct and claiming that anyone with a D is evil?
It would take me typing out a page to correct all the errors just in this paragraph, and another page to correct the errors in the rest of your post. I'll take some of the blame here since I see that in some cases I chose my words poorly, made some errors myself
The reality is that this is some complicated shit and I'm sure I'm not the only one doing research as I go along. Again, one of the reasons I keep coming back to Slashdot; very few other communities push me to learn this (if we're being honest) mundane crap that otherwise wouldn't have a whole lot of meaning to me. Inevitably, things that I learn during these discussions, which I never otherwise would have take the time to figure out, end up being useful in the real world, either because the information is directly useful or because a new perspective I was shown during the conversation shines a light on a solution I otherwise wouldn't have seen on a problem I encounter at some point.
Even if we never come to an agreement (and that shouldn't even be our goal here*), there is value in discussions like this. Of course, I think you recognize that or you would have abandoned the thread by now. Thanks for sticking with me here.
You seem very intent on placing all the problems with USB-C at the fault of Intel adopting the USB-C connector for Thunderbolt 3.
One very specific problem, but a perspective I was shown later in your post may have swayed that.
Imagine what USB-C would be without Thunderbolt muddying the waters. There would still be something like 15 different power ratings on cables and connectors, with 5 different voltages and at least 3 amp capacities. There would still be at least three different data rates, with cables not supporting them all based on pin outs, wire quality, length, and if they are active or passive.
I'll be starting at the end of this quote and working my way back.
First of all, there are active non-Thunderbolt USB-C cables? That's legitimately news to me and if you have a link to a spec for those, I'd love to see it. I'm genuinely curious how those would work, given how USB-C itself works; perhaps a 2 port "hub" in the middle of the cable? That's what I'm envisioning, at least.
Second, at least everything would still work because the protocol is forward- and backward-compatible with other versions. Some things might run slower, but they're work.
And here's where you might have gotten me, because I hadn't though about bus-powered devices. Which... won't work if they can't get enough voltage or current through the cable. That's a problem I see sometimes (rarely, often with portable drives, which usually draw near the max, if not a little over during spin-up) with USB-A, but you've shown me how it could potentially be more of a problem with USB-C. That said, I can imagine that peripherals are going to stick with 5v and relatively low amperage for operational power and make use of the additional available power for charging; and they'd still charge at lower voltages and with less current, just a bit slower, like we have with USB-A. I could see it being a problem for USB-C powered laptops and such, though, and if peripherals don't follow the same pattern of low-power operation they've more-or-less stuck with since 1998.
Regarding the power "problem", I do see that biting poorly engineered junk in the ass, just as it bit the lot of portable drives which shipped with "Y" USB-A cables to plug into two ports for more power. A decently engineered product is going to rely only the parts of the spec which are guaranteed to work, because they want to minimize customer complaints; that means data and the minimum available power, with a power brick if that's not enough -- then, they can add a note in small print on the back of the leaflet that ships with the product, noting that it may or may not work without the power brick, depending on your computer and cable. Che
How did authors make money before copyright? I mean, written works predate copyright, so someone must have paid for them, right? The original 14 years was a gift to authors, as it allowed them to earn a bit more than the initial writing would afford them, while balancing against the greater good of an enriched society via the public domain.
If an author hasn't made anything in the handful of years before their work goes out of print (and that's a smaller handful if it's not selling), they're not going to make anything on that work before they die and their family isn't going to make anything on it in the 70 years that follow. Because it's out of print. Because it wasn't selling.
If you haven't made a profit in 14 years, you're not going to. If you haven't made something else profitable in 14 years, I should say you've not contributed enough to society to deserve to continue profiting.
Copyright is what gets me paid, by the way. If it took me 14 years to profit off of my work, I'd fucking starve.
I'm not saying I necessarily agree with it (nor is that statement meant to imply that I don't), I'm just clarifying the point the AC above was likely trying to make.
Follow?
However, you invented the toilet once and the author wrote the book once. Just sayin'.
I get paid by the hour to write software for the people who will ultimately be using it.
No, really, that's how I make a living writing software. The people who want the software literally pay me to write it, which is how artists, musicians, and writers used to make money before copyright. That it's becoming less and less common today is a result of copyright.
For the record, it's still pretty common today, as well. Think plays, musicals, concerts, pretty much any live show, for-hire art and writing... there is actually more for-hire creative work done each day than there is for-sale creative work. Immensely more.
The Berne Convention was actually signed in 1886. The US became a signatory in 1988, before which US copyright terms were extended to life+50 (75 total for corporate authorship) in 1976. Before 1976, the term was 28 years, with the possibility for another 28 year extension. Currently, it's life+70 or, for corporate-authored works, 120 years from creation or 95 years from publication, whichever is shorter.
In 1922, 1923, and 1952, when those US entities were established, the US had not yet signed the Berne Convention and copyright was 28 years, my friend.
I actually read that as "dead authors don't need to get paid, copyright shouldn't outlive the author". I suppose I could stretch it to imply that copyright should be more limited than that, as well; say, the 14 years it was originally. And remember, when copyright was 14 years, printing and distribution were much slower than what we're capable of today. A book that would have taken a year to go to press and be shipped across the globe can now arrive on everyone's shelf tomorrow; if anything, that should further shorten copyright terms.
Before the plumber installed the toilet, there was no toiled; then the plumber installed the toilet, then there was a toilet. Before the author wrote the book, there was no book; then the author wrote the book, then there was a book. The plumber got paid to install the toilet. Follow?
I'm not saying I necessarily agree with it (nor is that statement meant to imply that I don't), I'm just clarifying the point the AC above was likely trying to make.
To plumber did the work once, the plumber got paid once. The author did the work once...
Mhm. That's why the goal posts remain, at this very moment, exactly where they were before you showed up. The people reading this have at least enough brain cells to be able to go back and read the conversation to realize this for themselves, so you're not fooling anyone.
Point out (and correct) the fucking lie or go fuck off a fucking cliff already. Seriously, it's that simple. I ask that you point out the lie and post correct information so the supposed lie doesn't do any more damage, and you can't. Why? Because there is no lie.
This is Slashdot. The people here might not always be the brightest, but you should at least give them the benefit of doubting they're stupid enough to fall for your idiotic games.
I know you're not fooling anyone, which is why I still find you entertaining enough to engage. But, let me ask you this (again): if I am, indeed, a liar, do you really want to be part of a community that upmods me consistently enough that my karma is consistently Excellent?
Look again at the PDF you linked to, HDMI is listed on the second page, left hand column, first paragraph.
You'll also note that the document I linked to, as well as the one you linked to, are both from 2016, after Thunderbolt 3 co-opted the port. If you look at what was supported prior to that, the USB-C spec itself, you have USB, DP, and power distribution. HDMI Licensing did release a standard for HDMI over USB-C in 2016, as well, which is separate from the Thunderbolt 3 standard which already included HDMI over DisplayPort. It is also worth noting that the Thunderbolt 3 standard includes 8 DisplayPort lanes while the USB-C standard includes only 4.
The way HDMI works, using all four data lanes in the spec, makes me wonder if a USB-C port could support both Thunderbolt and HDMI at the same time like Thunderbolt and DisplayPort can share data lines.
Since USB-C itself provides only 4 DisplayPort lanes, HDMI uses them all, and the port cannot be in both USB and Thunderbolt mode simultaneously, I would posit that this is not possible. It may be possible to slip some USB data in with the HDMI stream if the resolution or framerate is reduced sufficiently; I honestly don't know enough about HDMI to know if it frees up some of those lanes when it doesn't need the bandwidth. That said, as Thunderbolt 3 provides 8 DisplayPort lanes, a USB-C port operating in Thunderbolt mode can provide display and data transfer simultaneously, even at 4K@60Hz. If you have Thunderbolt available, that's what you'd want to use.
It was my understanding that Apple supported HDMI on USB-C and the adapters they offer for HDMI are passive, but I may be mistaken.
There was no HDMI over USB-C spec until 2016 and the current MacBook models still have the same chipset as the 2015 models. Additionally, the USB-C port, when not operating in Thunderbolt 3 mode (which these models lack) can't pass video and USB at the same time, thus why Apple sells a USB-C to DisplayPort cable (which, in theory, should work with a passive DP->HDMI adapter, as well) and USB-C adapters which include a second USB-C port, a USB-A port, and either HDMI or VGA. If the adapters were simple passive circuits, the USB-C and USB-A ports on them would be nonfunctional while video was being passed.
Intel does license Thunderbolt to others, AMD included.
Since when? The article you linked to, published less than 6 months ago, states that "Intel hasn't made the specification available to other companies" and "Intel has unveiled plans to not only build the technology into its processors, but to open the spec through a non-exclusive, royalty-free license." I see no indication that either of those things has happened yet. That might be why AMD does not take advantage of it. In fact, this article, published by Intel the very same day as the one you linked to, states "ntel is announcing that it plans to drive large-scale mainstream adoption of Thunderbolt by integrating Thunderbolt 3 into future Intel CPUs and by releasing the Thunderbolt protocol specification to the industry next year." That pretty much confirms why AMD hasn't taken them up on the offer yet; and time will tell whether Intel will make good on their word.
I hope they will, but I've had business dealings with Intel before and, let's just say their word is only as good as the legally binding contract it's written on, and that article is not legally binding.
I'm not saying it's not a problem, only that it's not something I'm going to be terribly concerned about now that I know some more about the issues.
HDMI and DisplayPort were USB-C alternate modes before Thunderbolt 3 came along. That's why the 2015 MacBook had only USB and DisplayPort supported on it's single USB-C port
This prompted me to do a bit more research and you're mostly right. According to the alternate mode specification, the 3 modes for USB-C include USB, DP, and power delivery; there is no HDMI support in the USB-C spec. Non-Thunderbolt Macs with USB-C (e.g. the 2015 and later non-Pro MacBook models) require an adapter for HDMI and Apple's adapter contains active hardware (similar to DisplayLink) to provide simultaneous HDMI (or VGA depending on which adapter you get) and USB, which is not possible when using an alternate mode. Alternately, it seems you could use a DP to HDMI adapter to get HDMI (and better display performance than Apple's HDMI adapter), but at the cost of any other use of the port (e.g. USB or charging).
Interesting, none the less, and probably why Intel chose the USB-C port for TB3. At any rate, a USB-C to DP cable isn't likely to confuse a lay consumer. USB-C to HDMI, though... since the HDMI mode is part of the TB3 spec, someone with, say, a 2015 MacBook might wonder why a USB-C to HDMI cable doesn't work.
I was with you at the beginning but this discussion and the research I've done has shown the logic behind why USB-C is what it is. [...] Thunderbolt does away with this USB baggage by leaving it behind as much as it could. The need for USB 3 fallback is pretty limited and is there so long as one chooses their devices and cables carefully.
Unless you have a USB-C host without Thunderbolt, which includes the non-Pro MacBook line (including current models) and every AMD system with USB-C. Then, well, you might like to have devices that can utilize the higher throughput and lower latency of Thunderbolt 3 where it's available, but still work where it's not. Portable drives with both Thunderbolt 2 and USB 3 are popular as hell, Apple sells the living shit out of them, in case you're wondering if that's a use case anyone actually cares about. My wife, a graphic designer, has a couple of them and uses TB2 with her iMac and MacBook Pro and USB 3 with her PC laptop that doesn't have Thunderbolt. Another advantage with Thunderbolt (all generations, mind you) is that it's not CPU-driven like USB, which is why it might be preferred where it's available, even if the additional throughput would be superfluous.
I can look forward to a thinner and lighter laptop in my future and not have to be concerned if I have the right ports on it.
As long as you choose Intel (as they won't license Thunderbolt to other x86 chipmakers), that is. With AMD being ahead in performance per dollar, performance per watt, and overall performance at the moment, that just seems... limiting. Also keep in mind that the lay consumer often buys on price which, combined with the recent release of Ryzen and the just-release Ryzen APUs and upcoming Ryzen mobile processors, means the lay consumer is likely to not have Thunderbolt 3 on their laptop in the very near future. Especially if they're shopping for better performance, longer battery life, and a cooler-running system, because AMD has all of those boxes ticked with Ryzen, along with the price box.
In short, this will be an issue for the lay consumer because the systems they're likely to be buying are not going to support Thunderbolt 3.
Which leads me to believe the problem will solve itself as those same consumers learn to avoid the Thunderbolt logo, then advise their friends and family to do the same. As I said before, Intel killed TB3 with they chose to use the USB-C port for it and not license it to AMD.
These annoying little adapters aren't so annoying since I know I can leave them behind and have a tiny little laptop when I'm done working, rather
Sorry, I just assumed you'd come to the same conclusion as I did, which is that it simply will fail to identify the songs and not phone home to look up a master database.
What part of my initial comment made you think I would have come to that conclusion? The first thing I said was literally:
I'm guessing it tries to phone home when it doesn't find a local match.
That doesn't address how it might identify songs not in the local database. The database holds roughly 10k songs, but songs which are removed from the database don't cease to exist and I'm guessing it will phone home to identify them.
I'm guessing it tries to phone home when it doesn't find a local match. I doubt VentureBeat tried it with anything obscure, but I highly doubt Google is gonna give a "we don't know" answer without exhausting their resources.
That explains the desire to use Thunderbolt, even in cases where the data rate is not needed, but does not explain the need for USB 3 fall back. Sure, the person using this equipment will see the bandwidth and latency get reported if fall back occurs but if such things are important then they will know what they are doing and make sure every piece in the device chain supports Thunderbolt.
Let's assume, for a moment, that a venue has a mixer as part of their audio setup (as is typical in the venues I've worked in) and that mixer presents an audio interface for a computer. Typically, when I've seen that in the real world it's been a USB 2.0 interface, and I expect that to remain the case for some time; however, if the interface were Thunderbolt, USB fallback would be desirable since the performer(s) may not have a Thunderbolt capable computer.
For an artist, band, or studio manager supplying all of their own equipment, as is typically the case in a recording or rehearsal environment, you are correct and we can expect them to know what they're doing. This does not hold true in a live performance environment where they are not supplying all of the equipment themselves and often are stuck using mixers and interfaces supplied by the venue.
Don't ask how I know this as a software developer unless you want to take this way off-topic; if you do want details I suggest emailing me, moderators can be dicks sometimes (I know, I get mod points often).
It could still show as a drive with the slave device managing reads and writes so that the host device doesn't mangle the file system.
You just described MTP. Which Apple doesn't support. An OS wants to mount a filesystem, but the filesystem is already mounted elsewhere, which prevents another system from mounting it, thus why something like MTP is required. Try mounting the same filesystem to two mount points; it can be done with SMBFS, SFTPFS (SSHFS), or something similar, but, again, those are layers between the OS and the actual underlying filesystem, just like MTP. You're not mounting the actual NTFS, FAT, EXT, HFS+ or whatever filesystem when you do that; you're mounting a translation layer to the underlying protocol which speaks to the host system to access the underlying filesystem.
That's not to say SMBFS or SSHFS over USB-C couldn't be implemented as a standard; it certainly could, but it's not the same as mounting the disk a-la target disk mode, during which the host system cannot access the disk because the guest has it mounted.
USB-C adds to this confusion since a glance at the cable ends doesn't necessarily tell you what the cable can do.
HDMI and DisplayPort joined the USB-C "club" as part of the Thunderbolt 3 spec, not as part of the USB-C spec itself. Before Thunderbolt 3 (and friends) joined the party, USB-C was USB 2.0 or higher and nothing more. It was just USB, the cables were just USB (and had to pass at least USB 2.0 to negotiate voltage and current), and any combination of compliant devices and compliant cable guaranteed you at least some functionality. The confusion literally all comes from Thunderbolt 3's use of the port.
Actually the more I think about this the less angered I get on this situation. I'm still frustrated on some level since I can't be assured that if I pick up a cable with USB-C on each end I'll know what it can do.
If Thunderbolt had stayed on the Mini-DisplayPort, you'd know. There was even a labeling requirement for those cables, so you knew a DP cable wouldn't work for TB, and a passthru requirement so you know a TB cable would still work for DP. We didn't have a situation where the more expensive cable couldn't perform some functions, like we have with USB-C/TB3 today, and the fault falls squarely on the shoulders of Thunderbolt 3 and it's misappropriation of the USB-C port.
If steps had been taken within the spec to mitigate these fa
Hence the statement elsewhere that USB-C sources that have TB capability should be fully USB-C compliant.
Except that most Thunderbolt 3 devices don't fall back to USB if Thunderbolt isn't available. Therein lies the problem for the lay consumer who doesn't know the difference.
We'll see what their redesigned mac pro brings, that will either herald a new approach or nail the coffin shut.
Fingers crossed. I mean, I'm really not looking forward to dropping $10k+ on my next workstation, but I'll do so with a smile 5 or 6 years down the road when I need to replace my current one if Apple is offering a worthy replacement.
And here's what a lot of people don't understand: I spent a little over $4k building my current workstation and, yes, Apple does sell a machine that will work for me today in that price range. However, they don't sell anything that comes near touching my $4k build, which means I'll get at least 5 years out of that $4k investment before I need to upgrade, where the machine that just covers what I need today will likely need to be upgraded (we're talking Apple, so replaced) next year. Most likely, the Mac Pro I could buy today would represent a $4000/yr cost of ownership; at best I'd expect it would represent an $800/yr cost. That same $800/yr cost is the projected worst case for my Ryzen build, half that if it manages to last the decade I designed it to last.
An Epyc-based Mac Pro, even the lowest-end Epyc, in a proper tower could easily serve my needs for well over a decade, making a $10k price tag easily justifiable. If Apple were to go that route, well, I think we're in agreement on what would happen.
Slashdot Mirror
At least Grandma loves you, though.
Confirmation of an elaborate scheme to dumb down the population, starting with Slashdot, by making everything politically correct and claiming that anyone with a D is evil?
There's an entire movement based on the idea of improving the world by removing the D
Isn't that what I just said ;)
It would take me typing out a page to correct all the errors just in this paragraph, and another page to correct the errors in the rest of your post. I'll take some of the blame here since I see that in some cases I chose my words poorly, made some errors myself
The reality is that this is some complicated shit and I'm sure I'm not the only one doing research as I go along. Again, one of the reasons I keep coming back to Slashdot; very few other communities push me to learn this (if we're being honest) mundane crap that otherwise wouldn't have a whole lot of meaning to me. Inevitably, things that I learn during these discussions, which I never otherwise would have take the time to figure out, end up being useful in the real world, either because the information is directly useful or because a new perspective I was shown during the conversation shines a light on a solution I otherwise wouldn't have seen on a problem I encounter at some point.
Even if we never come to an agreement (and that shouldn't even be our goal here*), there is value in discussions like this. Of course, I think you recognize that or you would have abandoned the thread by now. Thanks for sticking with me here.
You seem very intent on placing all the problems with USB-C at the fault of Intel adopting the USB-C connector for Thunderbolt 3.
One very specific problem, but a perspective I was shown later in your post may have swayed that.
Imagine what USB-C would be without Thunderbolt muddying the waters. There would still be something like 15 different power ratings on cables and connectors, with 5 different voltages and at least 3 amp capacities. There would still be at least three different data rates, with cables not supporting them all based on pin outs, wire quality, length, and if they are active or passive.
I'll be starting at the end of this quote and working my way back.
First of all, there are active non-Thunderbolt USB-C cables? That's legitimately news to me and if you have a link to a spec for those, I'd love to see it. I'm genuinely curious how those would work, given how USB-C itself works; perhaps a 2 port "hub" in the middle of the cable? That's what I'm envisioning, at least.
Second, at least everything would still work because the protocol is forward- and backward-compatible with other versions. Some things might run slower, but they're work.
And here's where you might have gotten me, because I hadn't though about bus-powered devices. Which... won't work if they can't get enough voltage or current through the cable. That's a problem I see sometimes (rarely, often with portable drives, which usually draw near the max, if not a little over during spin-up) with USB-A, but you've shown me how it could potentially be more of a problem with USB-C. That said, I can imagine that peripherals are going to stick with 5v and relatively low amperage for operational power and make use of the additional available power for charging; and they'd still charge at lower voltages and with less current, just a bit slower, like we have with USB-A. I could see it being a problem for USB-C powered laptops and such, though, and if peripherals don't follow the same pattern of low-power operation they've more-or-less stuck with since 1998.
Regarding the power "problem", I do see that biting poorly engineered junk in the ass, just as it bit the lot of portable drives which shipped with "Y" USB-A cables to plug into two ports for more power. A decently engineered product is going to rely only the parts of the spec which are guaranteed to work, because they want to minimize customer complaints; that means data and the minimum available power, with a power brick if that's not enough -- then, they can add a note in small print on the back of the leaflet that ships with the product, noting that it may or may not work without the power brick, depending on your computer and cable. Che
There's a joke in there somewhere about your username and freezing your d off... but this is politically-correct-dot so I won't make it.
I on't know. Gla you took it in the spirit it was intene! Goo night.
There, fixe that for you.
Where's the fun in that?
How did authors make money before copyright? I mean, written works predate copyright, so someone must have paid for them, right? The original 14 years was a gift to authors, as it allowed them to earn a bit more than the initial writing would afford them, while balancing against the greater good of an enriched society via the public domain.
If an author hasn't made anything in the handful of years before their work goes out of print (and that's a smaller handful if it's not selling), they're not going to make anything on that work before they die and their family isn't going to make anything on it in the 70 years that follow. Because it's out of print. Because it wasn't selling.
If you haven't made a profit in 14 years, you're not going to. If you haven't made something else profitable in 14 years, I should say you've not contributed enough to society to deserve to continue profiting.
Copyright is what gets me paid, by the way. If it took me 14 years to profit off of my work, I'd fucking starve.
Here we go again.
Indeed. Sadly, that was in a thread for another article, and not posted here.
I'm not saying I necessarily agree with it (nor is that statement meant to imply that I don't), I'm just clarifying the point the AC above was likely trying to make.
Follow?
However, you invented the toilet once and the author wrote the book once. Just sayin'.
Now, how do you make a living at making software?
I get paid by the hour to write software for the people who will ultimately be using it.
No, really, that's how I make a living writing software. The people who want the software literally pay me to write it, which is how artists, musicians, and writers used to make money before copyright. That it's becoming less and less common today is a result of copyright.
For the record, it's still pretty common today, as well. Think plays, musicals, concerts, pretty much any live show, for-hire art and writing... there is actually more for-hire creative work done each day than there is for-sale creative work. Immensely more.
The Berne Convention was actually signed in 1886. The US became a signatory in 1988, before which US copyright terms were extended to life+50 (75 total for corporate authorship) in 1976. Before 1976, the term was 28 years, with the possibility for another 28 year extension. Currently, it's life+70 or, for corporate-authored works, 120 years from creation or 95 years from publication, whichever is shorter.
In 1922, 1923, and 1952, when those US entities were established, the US had not yet signed the Berne Convention and copyright was 28 years, my friend.
I actually read that as "dead authors don't need to get paid, copyright shouldn't outlive the author". I suppose I could stretch it to imply that copyright should be more limited than that, as well; say, the 14 years it was originally. And remember, when copyright was 14 years, printing and distribution were much slower than what we're capable of today. A book that would have taken a year to go to press and be shipped across the globe can now arrive on everyone's shelf tomorrow; if anything, that should further shorten copyright terms.
Before the plumber installed the toilet, there was no toiled; then the plumber installed the toilet, then there was a toilet. Before the author wrote the book, there was no book; then the author wrote the book, then there was a book. The plumber got paid to install the toilet. Follow?
I'm not saying I necessarily agree with it (nor is that statement meant to imply that I don't), I'm just clarifying the point the AC above was likely trying to make.
To plumber did the work once, the plumber got paid once. The author did the work once...
Then, perhaps, restate your point more clearly? I'm not gonna sit here and play guessing games with you.
Mhm. That's why the goal posts remain, at this very moment, exactly where they were before you showed up. The people reading this have at least enough brain cells to be able to go back and read the conversation to realize this for themselves, so you're not fooling anyone.
Grow the fuck up already, this is getting old.
Point out (and correct) the fucking lie or go fuck off a fucking cliff already. Seriously, it's that simple. I ask that you point out the lie and post correct information so the supposed lie doesn't do any more damage, and you can't. Why? Because there is no lie.
This is Slashdot. The people here might not always be the brightest, but you should at least give them the benefit of doubting they're stupid enough to fall for your idiotic games.
I know you're not fooling anyone, which is why I still find you entertaining enough to engage. But, let me ask you this (again): if I am, indeed, a liar, do you really want to be part of a community that upmods me consistently enough that my karma is consistently Excellent?
Look again at the PDF you linked to, HDMI is listed on the second page, left hand column, first paragraph.
You'll also note that the document I linked to, as well as the one you linked to, are both from 2016, after Thunderbolt 3 co-opted the port. If you look at what was supported prior to that, the USB-C spec itself, you have USB, DP, and power distribution. HDMI Licensing did release a standard for HDMI over USB-C in 2016, as well, which is separate from the Thunderbolt 3 standard which already included HDMI over DisplayPort. It is also worth noting that the Thunderbolt 3 standard includes 8 DisplayPort lanes while the USB-C standard includes only 4.
The way HDMI works, using all four data lanes in the spec, makes me wonder if a USB-C port could support both Thunderbolt and HDMI at the same time like Thunderbolt and DisplayPort can share data lines.
Since USB-C itself provides only 4 DisplayPort lanes, HDMI uses them all, and the port cannot be in both USB and Thunderbolt mode simultaneously, I would posit that this is not possible. It may be possible to slip some USB data in with the HDMI stream if the resolution or framerate is reduced sufficiently; I honestly don't know enough about HDMI to know if it frees up some of those lanes when it doesn't need the bandwidth. That said, as Thunderbolt 3 provides 8 DisplayPort lanes, a USB-C port operating in Thunderbolt mode can provide display and data transfer simultaneously, even at 4K@60Hz. If you have Thunderbolt available, that's what you'd want to use.
It was my understanding that Apple supported HDMI on USB-C and the adapters they offer for HDMI are passive, but I may be mistaken.
There was no HDMI over USB-C spec until 2016 and the current MacBook models still have the same chipset as the 2015 models. Additionally, the USB-C port, when not operating in Thunderbolt 3 mode (which these models lack) can't pass video and USB at the same time, thus why Apple sells a USB-C to DisplayPort cable (which, in theory, should work with a passive DP->HDMI adapter, as well) and USB-C adapters which include a second USB-C port, a USB-A port, and either HDMI or VGA. If the adapters were simple passive circuits, the USB-C and USB-A ports on them would be nonfunctional while video was being passed.
Intel does license Thunderbolt to others, AMD included.
Since when? The article you linked to, published less than 6 months ago, states that "Intel hasn't made the specification available to other companies" and "Intel has unveiled plans to not only build the technology into its processors, but to open the spec through a non-exclusive, royalty-free license." I see no indication that either of those things has happened yet. That might be why AMD does not take advantage of it. In fact, this article, published by Intel the very same day as the one you linked to, states "ntel is announcing that it plans to drive large-scale mainstream adoption of Thunderbolt by integrating Thunderbolt 3 into future Intel CPUs and by releasing the Thunderbolt protocol specification to the industry next year." That pretty much confirms why AMD hasn't taken them up on the offer yet; and time will tell whether Intel will make good on their word.
I hope they will, but I've had business dealings with Intel before and, let's just say their word is only as good as the legally binding contract it's written on, and that article is not legally binding.
I'm not saying it's not a problem, only that it's not something I'm going to be terribly concerned about now that I know some more about the issues.
I'm not terribly concern
HDMI and DisplayPort were USB-C alternate modes before Thunderbolt 3 came along. That's why the 2015 MacBook had only USB and DisplayPort supported on it's single USB-C port
This prompted me to do a bit more research and you're mostly right. According to the alternate mode specification, the 3 modes for USB-C include USB, DP, and power delivery; there is no HDMI support in the USB-C spec. Non-Thunderbolt Macs with USB-C (e.g. the 2015 and later non-Pro MacBook models) require an adapter for HDMI and Apple's adapter contains active hardware (similar to DisplayLink) to provide simultaneous HDMI (or VGA depending on which adapter you get) and USB, which is not possible when using an alternate mode. Alternately, it seems you could use a DP to HDMI adapter to get HDMI (and better display performance than Apple's HDMI adapter), but at the cost of any other use of the port (e.g. USB or charging).
Interesting, none the less, and probably why Intel chose the USB-C port for TB3. At any rate, a USB-C to DP cable isn't likely to confuse a lay consumer. USB-C to HDMI, though... since the HDMI mode is part of the TB3 spec, someone with, say, a 2015 MacBook might wonder why a USB-C to HDMI cable doesn't work.
I was with you at the beginning but this discussion and the research I've done has shown the logic behind why USB-C is what it is. [...] Thunderbolt does away with this USB baggage by leaving it behind as much as it could. The need for USB 3 fallback is pretty limited and is there so long as one chooses their devices and cables carefully.
Unless you have a USB-C host without Thunderbolt, which includes the non-Pro MacBook line (including current models) and every AMD system with USB-C. Then, well, you might like to have devices that can utilize the higher throughput and lower latency of Thunderbolt 3 where it's available, but still work where it's not. Portable drives with both Thunderbolt 2 and USB 3 are popular as hell, Apple sells the living shit out of them, in case you're wondering if that's a use case anyone actually cares about. My wife, a graphic designer, has a couple of them and uses TB2 with her iMac and MacBook Pro and USB 3 with her PC laptop that doesn't have Thunderbolt. Another advantage with Thunderbolt (all generations, mind you) is that it's not CPU-driven like USB, which is why it might be preferred where it's available, even if the additional throughput would be superfluous.
I can look forward to a thinner and lighter laptop in my future and not have to be concerned if I have the right ports on it.
As long as you choose Intel (as they won't license Thunderbolt to other x86 chipmakers), that is. With AMD being ahead in performance per dollar, performance per watt, and overall performance at the moment, that just seems... limiting. Also keep in mind that the lay consumer often buys on price which, combined with the recent release of Ryzen and the just-release Ryzen APUs and upcoming Ryzen mobile processors, means the lay consumer is likely to not have Thunderbolt 3 on their laptop in the very near future. Especially if they're shopping for better performance, longer battery life, and a cooler-running system, because AMD has all of those boxes ticked with Ryzen, along with the price box.
In short, this will be an issue for the lay consumer because the systems they're likely to be buying are not going to support Thunderbolt 3.
Which leads me to believe the problem will solve itself as those same consumers learn to avoid the Thunderbolt logo, then advise their friends and family to do the same. As I said before, Intel killed TB3 with they chose to use the USB-C port for it and not license it to AMD.
These annoying little adapters aren't so annoying since I know I can leave them behind and have a tiny little laptop when I'm done working, rather
Sorry, I just assumed you'd come to the same conclusion as I did, which is that it simply will fail to identify the songs and not phone home to look up a master database.
What part of my initial comment made you think I would have come to that conclusion? The first thing I said was literally:
I'm guessing it tries to phone home when it doesn't find a local match.
That doesn't address how it might identify songs not in the local database. The database holds roughly 10k songs, but songs which are removed from the database don't cease to exist and I'm guessing it will phone home to identify them.
I'm guessing it tries to phone home when it doesn't find a local match. I doubt VentureBeat tried it with anything obscure, but I highly doubt Google is gonna give a "we don't know" answer without exhausting their resources.
That explains the desire to use Thunderbolt, even in cases where the data rate is not needed, but does not explain the need for USB 3 fall back. Sure, the person using this equipment will see the bandwidth and latency get reported if fall back occurs but if such things are important then they will know what they are doing and make sure every piece in the device chain supports Thunderbolt.
Let's assume, for a moment, that a venue has a mixer as part of their audio setup (as is typical in the venues I've worked in) and that mixer presents an audio interface for a computer. Typically, when I've seen that in the real world it's been a USB 2.0 interface, and I expect that to remain the case for some time; however, if the interface were Thunderbolt, USB fallback would be desirable since the performer(s) may not have a Thunderbolt capable computer.
For an artist, band, or studio manager supplying all of their own equipment, as is typically the case in a recording or rehearsal environment, you are correct and we can expect them to know what they're doing. This does not hold true in a live performance environment where they are not supplying all of the equipment themselves and often are stuck using mixers and interfaces supplied by the venue.
Don't ask how I know this as a software developer unless you want to take this way off-topic; if you do want details I suggest emailing me, moderators can be dicks sometimes (I know, I get mod points often).
It could still show as a drive with the slave device managing reads and writes so that the host device doesn't mangle the file system.
You just described MTP. Which Apple doesn't support. An OS wants to mount a filesystem, but the filesystem is already mounted elsewhere, which prevents another system from mounting it, thus why something like MTP is required. Try mounting the same filesystem to two mount points; it can be done with SMBFS, SFTPFS (SSHFS), or something similar, but, again, those are layers between the OS and the actual underlying filesystem, just like MTP. You're not mounting the actual NTFS, FAT, EXT, HFS+ or whatever filesystem when you do that; you're mounting a translation layer to the underlying protocol which speaks to the host system to access the underlying filesystem.
That's not to say SMBFS or SSHFS over USB-C couldn't be implemented as a standard; it certainly could, but it's not the same as mounting the disk a-la target disk mode, during which the host system cannot access the disk because the guest has it mounted.
USB-C adds to this confusion since a glance at the cable ends doesn't necessarily tell you what the cable can do.
HDMI and DisplayPort joined the USB-C "club" as part of the Thunderbolt 3 spec, not as part of the USB-C spec itself. Before Thunderbolt 3 (and friends) joined the party, USB-C was USB 2.0 or higher and nothing more. It was just USB, the cables were just USB (and had to pass at least USB 2.0 to negotiate voltage and current), and any combination of compliant devices and compliant cable guaranteed you at least some functionality. The confusion literally all comes from Thunderbolt 3's use of the port.
Actually the more I think about this the less angered I get on this situation. I'm still frustrated on some level since I can't be assured that if I pick up a cable with USB-C on each end I'll know what it can do.
If Thunderbolt had stayed on the Mini-DisplayPort, you'd know. There was even a labeling requirement for those cables, so you knew a DP cable wouldn't work for TB, and a passthru requirement so you know a TB cable would still work for DP. We didn't have a situation where the more expensive cable couldn't perform some functions, like we have with USB-C/TB3 today, and the fault falls squarely on the shoulders of Thunderbolt 3 and it's misappropriation of the USB-C port.
If steps had been taken within the spec to mitigate these fa
Yeah, they started soldering them in the touch bar MBPs in 2016, and the 2015 MBs. Another reason to only buy non-touch bar MBPs.
Actually, no, but they did come up with their own form factor.
Hence the statement elsewhere that USB-C sources that have TB capability should be fully USB-C compliant.
Except that most Thunderbolt 3 devices don't fall back to USB if Thunderbolt isn't available. Therein lies the problem for the lay consumer who doesn't know the difference.
We'll see what their redesigned mac pro brings, that will either herald a new approach or nail the coffin shut.
Fingers crossed. I mean, I'm really not looking forward to dropping $10k+ on my next workstation, but I'll do so with a smile 5 or 6 years down the road when I need to replace my current one if Apple is offering a worthy replacement.
And here's what a lot of people don't understand: I spent a little over $4k building my current workstation and, yes, Apple does sell a machine that will work for me today in that price range. However, they don't sell anything that comes near touching my $4k build, which means I'll get at least 5 years out of that $4k investment before I need to upgrade, where the machine that just covers what I need today will likely need to be upgraded (we're talking Apple, so replaced) next year. Most likely, the Mac Pro I could buy today would represent a $4000/yr cost of ownership; at best I'd expect it would represent an $800/yr cost. That same $800/yr cost is the projected worst case for my Ryzen build, half that if it manages to last the decade I designed it to last.
An Epyc-based Mac Pro, even the lowest-end Epyc, in a proper tower could easily serve my needs for well over a decade, making a $10k price tag easily justifiable. If Apple were to go that route, well, I think we're in agreement on what would happen.