Hence my comment about making the display port connection *optional* in the TBolt spec.
Intel's been rather cagey on this, as they've formally neither stated it is or isn't, but the initial information indicates that they wanted DP signals to be included. Which is why they've aimed it at laptops with either Integrated Graphics Processor's (IGP) or an embedded GPU, as it's easier to do it this way.
The likely reasoning behind this, is it will help eliminate confusion and foster adoption.
Which lends me to believe that
data only implementations will follow at a later date (Intel can withhold parts/refuse to sell to those that won't release a DP enabled TB port via for a period of time via contract language for example).
Asus has eleven different Z68 boards, and 26 other models just for socket 1155.
Industry data.
For example, ASUS leads board makers with a 21.6M units for 2010 (
source). Now if you divide 21.6M by 37 models, assuming the split is even, that comes to a tad over 580K units per model offered.
Now compare that with 2009 workstation data, that would put Apple's MP sales at ~76K (I showed this in another thread if you recall.
Quite a difference.
If you notice, most of their boards are consumer units, not workstations, and what workstation products they do offer, tend to be designed for dual use (i.e. gamers + workstation users).
Any proof, and why would it be any different for Apple making a minor revision to the Mac Pro?
A big part of it, has to do with the sales volume. Particularly how R&D is divided.
Since companies like ASUS and MSI sell a lot more units (see above), the R&D per board is lower, particularly when you realize that they don't spend nearly as much as a full system vendor on software validation (no integrated solutions, they don't write the OS, drivers, or other software that accesses particular chips on the board, such as Audio software <controls the output location for example>, as this is done by the respective semiconductor manufacturers).
What they would need to write on their own, would be things like the Over Clocking software utilities they offer (could also be contracted, but those contract costs are added to R&D).
The other thing to consider, has to do with sales periods (time between revisions), and how that effects system inventory. For example, if there's only 3 months between now and a new CPU/chipset model, and they released a TB unit now, they're likely to be stuck with a lot of unsold systems due to users waiting for the new CPU versions to become available (whether they buy the new model, or the TB only version at a discount). Which means Apple would be left "holding the bag" in terms of profit reductions, or even a net loss.
So the timing is critical.
Fact? No - just a guess. The "fact" is that most of your points would also justify a conclusion that a revised Mac Pro board wouldn't be that expensive.
It's not a guess. See above.
Even if you're just adding a single component to a board, particularly when that board is the only one offered, it requires a lot more work than you've realized (additional man-hours spent in design, hardware verification, software validation on the system end, as well as what that entails on product inventory control). Which is why such a move by a company like Apple is a bad move.
Hope this clears things up.
