Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jan 7, 2013, 04:26 PM   #76
gnasher729
macrumors G5
 
gnasher729's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Reminds me that I bought a tower Mac before USB was introduced. A bit later I decided that I needed a USB card. USB card for Macintosh = £30. USB card = £10. USB card worked just fine.

Why would anyone pay $300 for this? Two Thunderbolt ports. Well, one is needed so you can plug in the Thunderbolt cable from the Mac. Duuh. The other one so you can plug in an actual Thunderbolt device. Double duuh. So $300 for a few ports? If you pay $100 for a huge USB3 hard drive, why would you pay $300 for this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagamer34 View Post
There were plenty of 2011 Macs sold with Thunderbolt but no USB 3.0. That's the entire point of this product. So is that foolish?
Those people have lived for more than a year without USB 3.0. So what are they going to do: Spend $300 for USB 3.0? Or wait a little bit until they buy their next Mac that comes with USB 3.0 for free?

Last edited by gnasher729; Jan 7, 2013 at 04:31 PM.
gnasher729 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 04:28 PM   #77
knuro
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by willcapellaro View Post
The thunderbolt controller itself costs Belkin $25 from Intel, and each usb 3.0 costs $5. Do you expect Belkin to take a loss?

With typical margins, you won't see anything thunderbolt for USB hub cheap. And you get what you pay for.

I'd say if this works for someone's needs it's a good purchase. Quibbling over a few hundred bucks over what it "should" cost is fine for people who don't actually need it, but that's just moralizing.
It is not 'moralizing' if it beyond financial reach. I may buy one later in the year if the price drops thru Amazon or NewEgg.
knuro is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 04:33 PM   #78
willcapellaro
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by aloshka View Post
People want dual displays with these docks. Why would I pay 300 and more money for a monitor when the thunderbolt display will suffice. I just dont want to pay 2000 for dual displays. Would be nice if they just would do dual dvi. A lot of people are with me, I don't understand why no one is listening. It's not that hard.
I'm with you and I want that too. I feel like Apple is actively thwarting the multiple-external monitor crowd and poisoning the well for other product companies.

However, I'm too cheap for the TBD so this would work for me - I can hook up my old ACD and get ethernet without a silly wasteful dongle, and then plug in my other monitor to the other TB port (if and when I go rMBP). But it's still pretty ugly for a docked setup - I will need to plug in two TB cables.

TBD doesn't have USB 3.0 either, so it's a difficult road we walk.

But do I wish they would make this the cheap version and come up with another with dual downstream TB? Hell yeah.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by knuro View Post
It is not 'moralizing' if it beyond financial reach. I may buy one later in the year if the price drops thru Amazon or NewEgg.
I think the tech companies (including Apple) don't have a good idea on what people need. At the same time customers don't have a good idea of what it costs to make this stuff. So we can't say "hub = $40" and then assume a TB hub should cost the same. Key word is "should". If these guys were smart and wise as they should be, and they can make their margins, this stuff should come down. But it's not going to come way down.
willcapellaro is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 04:33 PM   #79
PracticalMac
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
FIREWIRE 800!, that's a bigger difference between the two!

As other pointed out, Mac uses will have FW over eSATA

(MR fail not to point that out)
__________________
FireWire 1394 Intelligent network guaranteed data transfer, 1500mA power, Ethernet compatible
Read: 160 files, 650MB total, FW400 70% faster then USB2
Write: 160 files, 650MB total, FW400 48% faster
PracticalMac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 04:35 PM   #80
rmwebs
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGrip View Post
I don't think that many people would want to use dvi.
I'm guilty of using DVI as there's a bug somewhere between Thunderbolt/DP and the rMBP. If I plug a DisplayPort => HDMI cable from my rMBP into one of my displays, it picks it up as a TV (thus no display options, overscan, and crap quality). If I plug it in with a DisplayPort => DVI then a DVI => HDMI it works fine. Somewhere something is (or maybe isnt) being transmitted with DVI that isnt being transmitted with HDMI.
rmwebs is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 04:38 PM   #81
aloshka
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGrip View Post
I don't think that many people would want to use dvi.
Then two mini displayports, anything. I don't care, but drive two monitors.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by willcapellaro View Post
I'm with you and I want that too. I feel like Apple is actively thwarting the multiple-external monitor crowd
But do I wish they would make this the cheap version and come up with another with dual downstream TB? Hell yeah.
I think apple will eventually update the 27" thunderbolt with the new infused glass display (as imac 27) and have usb 3.0 ports. When.. dunno, I'd guess when the next mac pro will be announced.

Ideally if apple would release 21.5 or 24" for 500-600 thunderbolt displays, I'd be insanely happy and daisy chain them. I absolutely need dual displays, but when i tried dual thunderbolt, it was insanely annoying (too big, IMO).
__________________
nMP 6-core 32GB / 1TB SSD | Dual 27" TB | iPad rMini | 5S 64GB ColorWare Yellow/Black
aloshka is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 04:43 PM   #82
rmwebs
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnasher729 View Post
Reminds me that I bought a tower Mac before USB was introduced. A bit later I decided that I needed a USB card. USB card for Macintosh = £30. USB card = £10. USB card worked just fine.

Why would anyone pay $300 for this? Two Thunderbolt ports. Well, one is needed so you can plug in the Thunderbolt cable from the Mac. Duuh. The other one so you can plug in an actual Thunderbolt device. Double duuh. So $300 for a few ports? If you pay $100 for a huge USB3 hard drive, why would you pay $300 for this?



Those people have lived for more than a year without USB 3.0. So what are they going to do: Spend $300 for USB 3.0? Or wait a little bit until they buy their next Mac that comes with USB 3.0 for free?
For me, its highly useful. On my rMBP, when I get into the office in the morning I currently plug in:

- Magsafe,
- 2x Displays (via the 2 Thunderbolt ports)
- 1x USB 3.0 HDD
- 1x USB 2.0 Hub (7 ports, all in use)

At the side of the desk I have 3 more USB 3.0 hard drives - I currently have to swap them around all the time due to lack of ports (and USB 3.0 hubs simply dont work on the rMBP - highly unreliable).

With this, I can get all of those drives working, stop using a USB 2.0 ethernet adaptor (at only 100mbps - my broadband is faster than that) and get a firewire port back (Still got a bunch of firewire drives).

So. May not be useful for you, but that doesn't immediately mean its a failure.
rmwebs is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 04:47 PM   #83
iGrip
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Send a message via ICQ to iGrip Send a message via AIM to iGrip Send a message via MSN to iGrip Send a message via Yahoo to iGrip Send a message via Skype™ to iGrip
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmwebs View Post
I'm guilty of using DVI as there's a bug somewhere between Thunderbolt/DP and the rMBP. If I plug a DisplayPort => HDMI cable from my rMBP into one of my displays, it picks it up as a TV (thus no display options, overscan, and crap quality). If I plug it in with a DisplayPort => DVI then a DVI => HDMI it works fine. Somewhere something is (or maybe isnt) being transmitted with DVI that isnt being transmitted with HDMI.
Sounds like a nightmare.
iGrip is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 04:49 PM   #84
poldidak
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Price compared to other docks

I was one of the people who spent $300 on a Bookendz dock for my 2008 MBP, and that was basically a passive pass-thru device since it still required a connection to every port on the laptop. But it made my life easier (until they changed the Mag-safe plug from T to L-shaped and I had to file a slot in plastic housing of the dock to make it work with the new connector!). In that sense the convenience of not having to plug 6 cables in each time was worth $300, even though it was not perfect (sometimes the pins on the video port would get slightly misaligned and mess up the external monitor signal) and was mostly just a hunk of machined aluminum and plastic.

Now that I'm on a 2011 MBP w/TB I'm back to plugging everything in manually. It actually has caused me to think twice about plugging my non-TB Apple display in every time and just use the laptop screen. And I don't always plug into my FW Time Machine drive to do auto b.u.

Since TB has to decode the stream for each port, it's understandable why they have to price it this high. Now, if the Belkin has glitches or has limits on data speed, no dice. At $300 it better work flawlessly out of the gate. How likely do any of you think that is possible?

That said, I think I'll just buy the Apple TB>FW adapter so I can get back to using my drives and FW audio interface with the Macbook Air I just bought for on-the-go music production. Try finding a TB-ready A/D interface!!!

Last edited by poldidak; Jan 7, 2013 at 04:53 PM. Reason: Added comment
poldidak is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 04:49 PM   #85
willcapellaro
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGrip View Post
If this is designed to be a laptop docking station, I don't think it has enough ports.

This thing seems to be limited and expensive. Meh.
Agreed - would like more USB, two would be fine as USB 1.0 or 2.0 for keyboard and mouse. One TB on the front would good for thumbdrives.

But I think many here would buy this today if we lost the firewire and gained another TB and enabled two displays. I'm assuming the TB>firewire adapter would still work for those who need it.

But at least this might hopefully be a solid TB product and not vaporware. Hopefully it will prod others to do better for more use cases.

______

Has nobody thought of making a modular hub? Just a bunch of bays that can be customized at the time of ordering?

Someone should just do a fake TB project where they simulate a product like that to see what people order. I'd take Ethernet, two downstream TBs, 2 USB 3.0 (one front facing), two USB 2.0, two USB 1.0 (side facing for keyboard + mouse), and call it a day. No need for audio or firewire. That would support my current to next year needs.

What do you need?
willcapellaro is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 04:58 PM   #86
mabhatter
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by BJB Productions View Post
Coming to a store near you ..... next year...ish.
That gives them til 2014-ish. Glastonbury see theses getting closer.

On a side note, there are a few companies that have dedicated Thunderbolt adapters. (Didn't ask how much) probably the most interesting are the ExpressCard adapters. Because Thunderbolt is PCI-E whatever ExpressCards added would be full speed. That also means you could get normal reasonably priced ExpressCard adapters. They are all just one card per Thunderbolt port though.

I'm thinking if somebody just added a dock full of 3-4 ExpressCard slots and 2-3 2.5" drive bays they could come in really cheap... After all none of these have Serial ports or AppleTalk!!!
mabhatter is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 04:58 PM   #87
defektion
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
I'd take this over the Matrox one as long as it's capable of outputting a resolution higher than 1080p
__________________
 MBP w/Retina 2.6/16/512 |  27" iMac 2.8/16/1TB (Late 2009) |  Mac Mini 2.0/4GB/500GB (Early 2009) |  iPad 2 16GB WiFi |  iPhone 4S 16GB
defektion is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 05:03 PM   #88
SDAVE
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Nowhere
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trik View Post
Seriously... I'll be playing a new Duke Nukem before I see this thing...
Oh dear god, no.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by dannyp1996 View Post
It's simple: Apple had a big incentive to invest in Thunderbolt early on. After all they did ship the first machines with the interface. It's just a big shame that other manufacturers aren't as motivated!
They just don't see money in it, this is why USB 3.0 took off and is super cheap now.

Of course, TB is a different interface, it's a hybrid and can become pretty much any port (it's an extension of PCIe)...but for what it does, it becomes more of a "premium" port rather than a standard one like USB. I wish that wasn't the case as the more users use it, the cheaper it becomes.
__________________
iPhone 5, MacBook Pro (2011), Mac Pro 2008, Apple Cinema Display 30" Aluminium
SDAVE is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 05:04 PM   #89
willcapellaro
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by defektion View Post
I'd take this over the Matrox one as long as it's capable of outputting a resolution higher than 1080p
I think HDMI itself can do 1920x1200. Not sure about Matrox hub though.
willcapellaro is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 05:06 PM   #90
mabhatter
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
The fundamental problem is that Thunderbolt is raw PCI-E so these are basically Half a PC motherboard... Unfortunately it's the "free" half that is usually supported by whatever motherboard-CPU interface chip you have. This is pushing companies to go out and buy a bunch of parts they were done using years ago... And for actual money. Just the cost of finding, buying, and gluing these all to a board is more work than building your average PC motherboard now... Thats what kicks the cost up before they even add Thunderbolt and Apple Markup to the thing.

That said, it really does redefine how computers are sold, because at this point Mac Mini style PCs are the way to go... No giant case, just add the adapter you need for legacy uses.
mabhatter is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 05:08 PM   #91
Laco
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by willcapellaro View Post
The thunderbolt controller itself costs Belkin $25 from Intel, and each usb 3.0 costs $5. Do you expect Belkin to take a loss?

With typical margins, you won't see anything thunderbolt for USB hub cheap. And you get what you pay for.

I'd say if this works for someone's needs it's a good purchase. Quibbling over a few hundred bucks over what it "should" cost is fine for people who don't actually need it, but that's just moralizing.

It is not "moralizing" it is a statement about how over-priced Thunderbolt is for the average user. Sure I have $300 to spend but why would I want to buy this when I can buy a USB 3.0 hub for under $30. That's my issue.
Laco is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 05:31 PM   #92
willcapellaro
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laco View Post
It is not "moralizing" it is a statement about how over-priced Thunderbolt is for the average user. Sure I have $300 to spend but why would I want to buy this when I can buy a USB 3.0 hub for under $30. That's my issue.


Excuse the term moralizing... it's just when people into relative statements like "should" and "overpriced" that don't take into account things that are out of your control... such as specifying and pricing components that other people control, and that are the main factors that go into street price.

Just lower your standards or don't have standards and problem solved. If your USB hub is working for you, problem solved. If you need a TB hub, this might work for you then. But it won't be USB cheap.

Believe me, Belkin would like to price this competitively but their hands are tied. Someone could plug in some very demanding components into this hub and they need to have a solid device that can support them. You'll say, so does a USB hub, and I'll agree, but I'll say that USB is nicely limited in scope to data transfer that is handled by the CPU.

You could plug three USB enclosures and FW enclosure, and Ethernet and a TBD into this and it would probably smoke the a USB 3.0 hub trying to do the same (and the USB hub couldn't natively access LAN or a display). That's what you're paying for -- which is unfortunate for people who don't need to throw that kind of heat.
willcapellaro is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 05:33 PM   #93
rmwebs
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laco View Post
It is not "moralizing" it is a statement about how over-priced Thunderbolt is for the average user. Sure I have $300 to spend but why would I want to buy this when I can buy a USB 3.0 hub for under $30. That's my issue.
Because this isnt a usb 3.0 hub. If you're trying to compare it to one you really have no use for this product.

Also, have you tried a USB 3.0 hub on the rMBP? They suck - big time. Very unreliable.
rmwebs is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 05:43 PM   #94
willcapellaro
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmwebs View Post
Because this isnt a usb 3.0 hub. If you're trying to compare it to one you really have no use for this product.

Also, have you tried a USB 3.0 hub on the rMBP? They suck - big time. Very unreliable.
Can you elaborate? Unreliable data speeds or anything more serious like mouse/keyboard problems? I can understand data speed fluctuation, as it's the CPU prioritizing things. It sucks nonetheless.

Apple just doesn't give us enough ports.
willcapellaro is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 05:46 PM   #95
hamkor04
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Why on the earth this kind of devices should unrealistikly overprised?
For $299 you can buy a laptop with usb, HDMI, Ethernet, DVI maybr SD card reader, cpu, hdd, ram and other complex bits than this dock. Oh well, there is no TB though
__________________
“All this has happened before, and all this will happen again.”
hamkor04 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 05:52 PM   #96
AidenShaw
macrumors G5
 
AidenShaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Peninsula
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmwebs View Post
Because this isnt a usb 3.0 hub. If you're trying to compare it to one you really have no use for this product.

Also, have you tried a USB 3.0 hub on the rMBP? They suck - big time. Very unreliable.
Do they work with Windows?
__________________
Edward Snowden - American Hero.
Daniel Ellsberg: "Edward Snowden: Saving Us from the United Stasi of America"
Marriage equality is unstoppable
AidenShaw is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 05:56 PM   #97
el-John-o
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Missouri
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericinboston View Post
You're telling us that the iMac, which came out in August 1998, somehow had USB ports/technology before USB 1.0 was released in January 1996?

Ummmmmmm....

But regardless, My Win98 system (released before iMac) was using USB....and I am pretty sure my old Win95 Micron machine was using USB because I recall I didn't want to upgrade to Win98.
Oh jeeze.

The comment was not "Steve Jobs invented USB with his own two hands" it was "It was the first machine to really be using USB" I didn't even say "It was the first machine to use USB". I guess I should have bolded 'really'

There were USB cards, and a HANDFUL of USB equipped machines. But the iMac was the first machine in popular service to utilize USB, and it utilized it nearly exclusively, ditching many of the old connector standards.

At the time, most of the USB devices on the market were for Mac, were very expensive, etc. I know, I was a PC user at the time! I was excited about USB, but was upset that the cards were expensive, and the devices were initially limited. It only took a couple of months before it took off (so not as slow) but my point still was, I do remember conversations about how USB was 'dead' because it HAD been around since '96 (and we had heard about it before that), but by the iMacs introduction in 1998, there were still very few devices available. The iMacs USB keyboard and mouse, in fact, was one of the only options you had for a USB keyboard and mouse!

So folks said it was dead. Too expensive, taking too long to adopt, etc. Then, eventually, hardware and software changes and the old ports became too slow, and people migrated to USB out of necessity, due to it's robustness and speed. They didn't go to FireWire when it was released, despite it's incredible speed, because it didn't have the same friendliness with peripherals USB did. So USB took off.

Thunderbolt won't take off in that way, but it will remain relevant. However some seem to think it'll dethrone USB and we'll be left with 8 thunderbolt ports along the size of our MacBook Pro and nothing else. No, it'll live like FireWire. A cutting edge, top of the line, high speed data transfer port. FireWire WAS successful, just not in the consumer, low to mid grade PC market. It was the de facto standard for professionals who used a lot of external standard. Cheap digital video cameras used USB, mid and professional grade ones used FireWire, etc. Thunderbolt will be the same. USB will continue to be the consumer grade product which will work for most people most of the time, and those who demand performance and are willing to pay for it will use Thunderbolt, and it will live on!
__________________
Windows7 PC - Phenom II 965@4GHz x4 Cores, 16GB DDR3-2133, Radeon HD7970 | iPhone 5 32GB | iPad Air WiFi+LTE 128GB | Mid 2012 MacBook Pro 13", Dual 256GB SSD's in RAID 0, 16GB DDR3-1600
el-John-o is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 05:57 PM   #98
jm001
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
It still doesn't cut down on cables since you still have to plug the cables in this dock. So instead of connecting it to your computer you connect it to the dock. It's a hub.
jm001 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 06:10 PM   #99
rmwebs
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by AidenShaw View Post
Do they work with Windows?
Yup. Fine under bootcamp. I've tried 5 different (branded) hubs - all of them were useless on OS X.
rmwebs is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 7, 2013, 06:11 PM   #100
spoonie1972
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Toronto
still $200 too much. this is insanity. early adoption or not.
__________________
2012 MPB 15, 16GB, 512SSD, Geek 11941 - Logic Audio
2009 Mac Pro, 64GB, 5,1 Firmware, X5570 swap x2, EVGA GTX570, VEP5, Kontakt, and AE
spoonie1972 is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Belkin Thunderbolt Express Dock Display Flicker Jerz MacBook Pro 1 Apr 10, 2014 10:06 AM
Belkin Thunderbolt Express Dock Snoopyav Mac Peripherals 0 Oct 27, 2013 01:44 PM
Belkin Thunderbolt Express Dock Sleep Issue dking4 Mac Peripherals 1 Jul 18, 2013 10:33 AM
3 Monitors MacBook Pro with Belkin Thunderbolt Express Dock tompana82 Mac Peripherals 1 Jun 15, 2013 12:53 PM
Belkin Upgrades Thunderbolt Express Dock with USB 3.0 and eSATA, Bumps Price to $399.99 MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 443 May 12, 2013 01:27 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:25 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC