I know, it's a mess. try plugging a normal Thunderbolt 3 Cable in your iPad Pro. It's not supported.
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.
Apple Begins Selling Standalone 2-Meter Thunderbolt 3 Pro Cable for $129
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I know, it's a mess. try plugging a normal Thunderbolt 3 Cable in your iPad Pro. It's not supported.
Actually I have to disagree with you, back when I purchased my ThinkPad, I compared that and the then current MBP, and for around 2,200 I got a great machine, where if I bought a similarly configured MBP, it would have been in the 4,600 dollar range.
Thunderbolt was never aimed at the consumer market.
Not sure what's ''not true'' about my statement but that's pretty nice that they work with USB C and TB3.
The fact that T-Bolt requires "active" cables means the cable ends contain required circuitry that, for some reason, is excluded from the "expensive" computers or devices and shifted to what might otherwise be "inexpensive" cables.
T-Bolt is a scam and Apple is one of the scammers.
T-Bolt is a scam and Apple is one of the scammers.
Apple are really trying to ram it up our backsides!
Cable Matters [Intel certificado] 0,8 m Cable Thunderbolt 3 de 40 Gbps (Cable Thunderbolt 3 USB C, Cable USB C a USB C) Que admite Carga de 100W, 8K@30Hz/4K@120Hz en Negro
Más velocidad... más píxeles... más posibilidades El cable Cable Matters Thunderbolt 3 soporta cuatro veces más datos y el doble de ancho de banda de video que cualquier otro cable a un dispositivo Thunderbolt 3. Una velocidad de transferencia de datos de 40 Gbps a través de este cable puede sop...www.amazon.es
€24.99 or US$28 for you guys across the pond.
That's 0.8m. You can do that over simple copper. Copper's problem with signal degradation scales rapidly with length.
Is this an optical cable? Those are seen more and more for Thunderbolt and HDMI. Cosemi is one manufacturer I've seen. Photonic cables don't have the signal-dispersion and -corruption issues that copper does.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
Yeah, sure.
With that reasoning each ****** BLE module on the market would cost your 129,- instead of a couple of cents.
The Rohde&Schwarz test equipment, the EMC chambers needed to test the RF characteristics, the amplifiers, antennas etc. cost a couple of million dollars in sum.
The mistake here is that you do not take into account what the desired sales volume (in pcs.) is for the cable. The manufacturer clearly aims to sell a couple of them, right?
The second mistake is that most of the test equipment is already there in the lab or on the engineering office desks, so the costs can not be dumped on the sole purpose of designing/testing this specific cable.
But yeah, as an electronics engineer I do not have a glimpse of what you´re writing here... sure.
We’ll have to wait for a tear down to see. My thoughts are a better kind of wiring technology (fiber optics maybe?) combined with complicated circuitry to also support USB C. Both of which have R&D costs that need to be offset, plus Apple tax, plus low expected volume of sales drives price up.
e.g. The silicon / sand materials cost of processors actually costs pennies. Processors are $100-$1,000 for consumers though, most of which goes to pay the engineer’s salaries to design the chips. Server processors take (almost) the same amount of effort to design but simply because less will be sold, the price needs to be higher.
Consumer CPUs: $1,000,000,000 to design, expecting to sell 10,000,000 —> price of $100 to offset design cost.
Server CPUs: $1,000,000,000 to design, expecting to sell 1,000,000 —> $1,000 per chip
same with cables
Go big. Fire up eBay and order yourself a Series 1 Apple Watch Edition. Gold, baby.
I was waiting for this cable, now it looks way too expensive. I do like its capabilities, I've yet to see any other cable do every protocol without sacrificing cable length, but for this price it's not worth it to me.
I think what happened here with the price is it's an active cable but it's a special chip inside that switches between active and passive modes, so that it works with non-Thunderbolt protocols in passive mode and full TB3 speeds in active mode. I think no one else is doing that, but maybe I'm wrong. Every other cable before has had to sacrifice length to be a passive cable, or data rates with TB3 protocol, or had to sacrifice other protocols by using an active cable.
Also I don't think it's fiber optic. Fiber optic has special considerations that Apple would have to warn users about, like that you can't bend the cable in a tight radius because fiber optics aren't amenable to bending and lose the signal.
I think what happened here with the price is it's an active cable but it's a special chip inside that switches between active and passive modes, so that it works with non-Thunderbolt protocols in passive mode and full TB3 speeds in active mode. I think no one else is doing that, but maybe I'm wrong. Every other cable before has had to sacrifice length to be a passive cable, or data rates with TB3 protocol, or had to sacrifice other protocols by using an active cable.
Also I don't think it's fiber optic. Fiber optic has special considerations that Apple would have to warn users about, like that you can't bend the cable in a tight radius because fiber optics aren't amenable to bending and lose the signal.
Most other Thunderbolt 3 cables do not support USB 3.1 Gen 2 data transfer. For some this may justify the large price premium.
