Looking at the pictures, it looks like some electronics within the connectors will convert from electrical to optical and vice versa, rather than the ports pushing light directly. Am I correct?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Fiber Optic Thunderbolt Cables Begin Mass Production, Available Up to 30m in Length
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Makes me wonder if the next MacPro will arrive in modular form. Use fibre optic interconnects via the thunderbolt port and build your own supercomputer.
Might need an update to OSX but I think the groundwork has been done.
Might explain the delay in updating if there is going to be a whole new form factor.
Just more channels, 40 max if I'm not mistaken, and the current die that Intel has is limited to 4 channels, some only two channels for peripherals, albeit the second generation TB is on smaller die and less expensive.
I don't recall if the 40 channel capability is specific to fiber cable, but the current 30m was probably chosen for practical reasons rather than technical, and as others have pointed out, has limited topology as compared to available network technology.
TB shines as a PCIe extender, Displayport connection, and dock, with limited attached storage capability, and complements USB 3.0 for workstations. Video and audio capture are obvious markets with its low latency advantage over USB 3.0.
If these are indeed fibre optic based, then heat and stress should not be an issue. My current Apple T/Bolt cable which is about 3 ft...( it's the original stock one) get's hot at the ends, always has. The R4 unit doesn't even get warm though. In theory, FIOS cabling should not conduct heat, but the jury is out. I'm not going to jump right in, but when I do buy the R8 I will need to find someplace else for them to live. A longer cable would make this a breeze.
Alignment and losses.
If the optics were in the port then everytime you plugged in a cable you would have to have micron precision alignment of the optical outputs and the cable light pathways - in 3 dimensions. There would also be a problem of losses at plastic/air/plastic interfaces and possible reflected signals etc etc. You avoid all of those headaches by simply building the light source into the cable and keeping the contacts electrical. Its clever.
Last I checked, Fiber Optic technology was invented in Paris, in the 1840s. So no. Not really.
worked in broadcast environments myself, basically money no object. So I can see this type of cable being used to pump several channels of uncompressed video around the suites and backend area. It's not for the likes of single users really.
I'm no expert, but the fact that the fiber-optic cables cannot transfer power and so the fact that the external devices cannot be bus-powered, it's kinda annoying...
Of course, if you use a 30m cable it probably won't be a problem finding a nearby power outlet, but on shorter cable (do they exist? short thunderbolt cables in fiber optic? Or are they just in copper?) it sucks..
Of course, if you use a 30m cable it probably won't be a problem finding a nearby power outlet, but on shorter cable (do they exist? short thunderbolt cables in fiber optic? Or are they just in copper?) it sucks..
Would you care to share a reasonable, global usage for such technology that wouldn't be considered to be in the 'extremely niche' category?
----------
It's only going to be a problem if you are trying to plug a portable hard drive in. In which case you have zero need for Thunderbolt as USB 3.0 can do that just fine.
Seriously for a 'static' machine with 'static' peripherals, its not really a problem to have to plug stuff in.
Incorporating Fiber Optics Isn't Cheap or Easy
Not "just a transparent plastic cable with an LED and a photodiode at either end," but you're essentially correct. Doing so isn't practical because it would significantly increase the cost of the components (Macs and peripherals in this case) for everyone when only a small number of users are likely to need or want such functionality.
There are composite cables (i.e., cables with optical fibers + current carrying wires), but again, the increase in cost is prohibitive for most consumer applications.
No, fiber optics is very expensive.
Not "just a transparent plastic cable with an LED and a photodiode at either end," but you're essentially correct. Doing so isn't practical because it would significantly increase the cost of the components (Macs and peripherals in this case) for everyone when only a small number of users are likely to need or want such functionality.
There are composite cables (i.e., cables with optical fibers + current carrying wires), but again, the increase in cost is prohibitive for most consumer applications.
No, fiber optics is very expensive.
Though they last longer than LEDs, Lasers don't last forever either. Even so, it's still highly unlikely that they're using lasers. Even at 30 meters, those runs are far too short to justify the expense of using lasers. They could, but the cables would be even more expensive. Additionally, for this application, it makes much more sense to use multimode fiber (MMF), which would employ LEDs, rather than single-mode fiber (SMF), which would employ lasers.
The 40-channel capability may be imposed by the TB technology. MMF is capable of handling up to 1700 or so channels simultaneously.
----------
If they don't already exist, they could certainly be manufactured. But they'd be expensive!
think in chains
You would not need the adapter if you're inserting another TB device into the chain.
Computer > RAID/HD/SSD > Display
Computer > Audio/Video interface > Display(s)
Computer > Breakout box > Display
I'm sure there are more options...
You would not need the adapter if you're inserting another TB device into the chain.
Computer > RAID/HD/SSD > Display
Computer > Audio/Video interface > Display(s)
Computer > Breakout box > Display
I'm sure there are more options...
Can be pinched 180˚ seems a little hard to believe
When installing or using fiber optic cables, you always have to go by the cable manufacturer's specs as to how tightly you can bend a cable, but the general rules are:
When installing or using fiber optic cables, you always have to go by the cable manufacturer's specs as to how tightly you can bend a cable, but the general rules are:
- During installation (stressed, dynamic, short-term, tensile load) - minimum bend radius is equal to 15 x D (diameter of cable) indoors and 20 x D (diameter of cable) outdoors.
- After installation (unstressed, static, long-term (load), operating load) - minimum bend radius is equal to 10 x D (diameter of cable) indoors and 10 x D (diameter of cable) outdoors.
- Glass Fiber: glass core, glass cladding (best performance, but is expensive)
- Plastic-clad Silica: glass core, plastic cladding (good performance, less expensive)
- Hard-clad Silica: glass core, hard plastic cladding (good performance, more rugged)
- Plastic Fiber: plastic core, plastic cladding (good for short distances like 10s of feet, very cheap, and probably what is used in these cables)
Last edited:
This sounds cool. Of course, since this is an OPTICAL cable, Apple will refuse to support it on their computers, and refer to it as a "bag of hurt".
winkey or no, your statement makes no sense. apple didn't choose not to implement bluray because it's optical.
Last edited:
TB is a host based technology, not a network type topology, so yes, that 30m of Fiber optics is for a single user.
In the environnements you're talking about, you're much better of with 10 GbE, using Etherchannels/bonding for more performance or using a FC based SAN.
...yeah, you should probably send a memo to Intel and Apple, letting them know you've thought about it and couldn't find any seemingly useful scenarios for the tech. they'd surely appreciate your insight and willingness to save them R&D costs for a potentially small niche product space.
Keep reading, starting with the white paper. Putting your head in the sand may be comforting, but ignores reality. This is not an Apple specific problem. It is a problem across the board.
As to Apple products, different ones exhibit problems to varying degrees with a variety of products.
Which USB 3 manufacturer whose products are a problem do you work for. You certainly are behaving like a shill.
So the Thunderbolt glacier has moved another inch....yawn.
I'll be fossilized by the time this "new" technology is actually mainstream and affordable.
I'll be fossilized by the time this "new" technology is actually mainstream and affordable.
For cryin' out loud, it's barely been two years!
These discussions sound so much like USB discussions when the USB-only iMac came out years ago. Well, USB turned out pretty good didn't it? It was revolutionary in many ways, just like thunderbolt, which means it's going to take time to be fully adopted. Took several years for USB.
While I'm not sure dumping the XServe was a good idea, the problem is more on the software side of things. Yes, with something like TB, a mini makes a decent server hardware wise (we used to have a whole rack of minis in the server room where I used to work
Lion and Mt Lion Server dumped way too many features. Who cares if it is cheap if it isn't competent. And, OSX has become quite problematic for the Pro market as well. One great example is the whole 'save-as' mess Apple has created. Sure, that might save a newbie who forgets to save, now and then... but it really messes up entire workflows for Pro and business users. Imagine 50 users sharing documents on a server. Nightmare!
Apple keeps making one silly move after another as they chase the consumer market. It's kind of ironic actually. Apple was a company known for attention to detail. This was the reason many of us spent the extra bucks to use their stuff. Now, it's starting to look like that lack of attention to detail may be the chink in their armor.
I'm really hoping they get their act together soon. I've been an Apple fan and consultant for over 2 decades. But, I think they are starting to make crucial mistakes in very core areas. That does have me worried.
Yea, I hope you are correct. I was a bit joking, though I really wish Apple was putting a bit more effort into this. They could not gouge so much on the cables. They could push for some more devices to be developed. Heck, they could make a device or two if others aren't stepping up to the plate.
All good points. I can remember being a Mac user in the 90's, and back then Mac users weren't the 'hip cool' crowd, they were the nerd/geek crowd, and the crowd who had work to do. Ironically, the tides have sort of turned. Mac OS was always, and I think still is, a very powerful operating system, but I agree, some things are wrinkles Apple is going to have to iron out.
Some things I like. Some are concerned about how Apple is sort of making OSX resemble iOS, but I think they are doing a beautiful job of it. Unlike Windows who is making a botched together OS to resemble Windows phone in such a way that it's clunky and unwieldy, especially on non touch machines (in my opinion anyway), Apple is leaving the interface the same but taking features from iOS and incorporating. I love launchpad and the new notification menu, even as an old Mac user who was using Mac OS way before OS X!
We shall see, I have confidence that Apple will iron out the wrinkles in the Pro market. Years ago, Windows just couldn't handle professional level creative and design tasks. Apart from being unreliable and inefficient, much of the software was not available. That's not the case anymore. Windows is a much better OS than it used to be (sans 8), and the vast majority of the software used by creative professionals is now available on Windows, and there are plenty of alternatives to applications like Final Cut Pro. I think Apple knows that, and I think they know they have to compete to keep their large, and long-time loyal creative professional crowd.
However, I think they are also balancing that with the fact that, for the second time really (was a surge when the iMac first came out but then it waned), Macs are 'cool', and there is a huge group of college students and the like who are owning Macs for the 'cool' factor, and they represent a huge market. They don't do anything more than Facebook and word processing, but, you just aren't cool if your laptop doesn't have a glowing piece of fruit on it!
We'll see where it goes. I just think Apple has been synonymous with professional, reliable, high performance machines for too long to abandon it. They've waxed and waned in the 'cool' market before, and I think they realize that their bread and butter (for the Mac at least, which probably is a drop in the bucket compared to their massive mobile market) is always going to be the pro market. They'll figure it out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_K._Kao
Charles K. Kao
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Charles Kuen Kao
高錕
Born 4 November 1933 (age 79)
Shanghai, China[1]
Residence China (19331948)
Hong Kong
United Kingdom (19521970)
United States
Citizenship United States
United Kingdom[1]
Hong Kong[2]
Fields Physics
Institutions Chinese University of Hong Kong
...
Known for Fiber optics
Fiber-optic communication
Notable awards IEEE Morris N. Liebmann Memorial Award (1978)
IEEE Alexander Graham Bell Medal (1985)
....
Nobel Prize in Physics (2009)
....
This is a Chinese name; the family name is Kao.
Charles K. Kao
Traditional Chinese 高錕
Simplified Chinese 高锟
[show]Transcriptions
The Honorable Sir Charles Kuen Kao, GBM,[3] KBE,[4] FRS,[5] FREng[6] (born 4 November 1933) is a Chinese-born Hong Kong, American and British electrical engineer and physicist who pioneered in the development and use of fiber optics in telecommunications. Kao, known as the "Godfather of Broadband",[7] "Father of Fiber Optics"[8][9][10][11][12] or "Father of Fiber Optic Communications",[13][14] was awarded half of the 2009 Nobel Prize in Physics for "groundbreaking achievements concerning the transmission of light in fibers for optical communication".[15] Kao holds dual citizenship of the United Kingdom and the United States.[7]