Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The intension of this is one word, cheap.
One cable which includes all the ports is still a lot cheaper than building all those controllers into lets say a display.
Since many PC are cheap they want them getting a cheap way to get all those ports and the cheapest way is a proprietary cable/connector.
 
Yes it does. It appears quite similar.

Apple has ignored building a good docking station for their MBP's and I miss it.

The ThinkPad docking stations are very handy. In a matter of seconds it snaps in place & immediately your monitor, printer, scanner, trackball or mouse & keyboard are all connected. It saves wear & tear, as well as time.

It's a lot cleaner since you can permanently route the cables nicely with tie wraps which give it a very nice look. If you buy the expansion dock it accommodates extra expansion like another SSD or Hard Drive, as well as other accessories.

I know that Apple is opposed to businesses, but to cheat the consumer out of such a valuable accessory is something that seems a bit absurd.

Yeah, I have a dock for my HP work laptop, As soon as I put it on the dock, it's connected to power, ethernet, dual monitors, keyboard, mouse and headphones. It's extremely convenient. I wish my MacBook had something like that.
 
Apple could simply move every iPod/iPhone to Thunderbolt on the next rev. They all have Cloud syncing anyway (PC-Free remember?). But now if you want to connect to the computer you'll need Thunderbolt. Watch how fast all non-Mac computers and third-party card manufacturers start shipping with Thunderbolt.
 
Big bulky cables like that are not the way to go. Apple proved that with the Thunderbolt connector on today's Macs. Having two cables there is not smart, why they did not consolidate into one cable makes no sense.

Thunderbolt is currently limited to 20W in its current implementation. This could simply be an issue of delivering more power. You won't be daisy chaining 7 devices or whatever it was off 20W. Also plenty of Apple cables are bulky and have plenty of limitations.

Apple would probably sue them if they did something similar.

You know that Intel owns it right? Are they going to sue Intel too? Intel did the primary development going back several years. Apple just got to implement it first.

They did it because like everything in the PC world, they are too lazy to get it right. They take the easy way out of everything and leave their customers with mediocrity.

Apple didn't invent thunderbolt. Say that to yourself 10 times in the mirror so that the denial can go away. Intel designed it for computers that run off Intel chipsets. They debuted/beta tested on Macs. Thunderbolt was destined for Windows PCs before Apple even had it. Recall the name lightpeak? It's the same thing. It was simply rebranded as thunderbolt. There's an incredibly uneducated biased view that Apple is the only company that knows how to do anything right. I use Macs too. I've worked on Windows computers as well, and late XP to Vista was the time they really sucked. Today they're just as good.
 
Apple could simply move every iPod/iPhone to Thunderbolt on the next rev. They all have Cloud syncing anyway (PC-Free remember?). But now if you want to connect to the computer you'll need Thunderbolt. Watch how fast all non-Mac computers and third-party card manufacturers start shipping with Thunderbolt.

making lightpeak/thunderbolt the only interface will leave a significant chunk of customers out in the cold. As much as Apple likes it Cloud syncing isn't going to work for many people due to lack of bandwidth.

assuming a 2012 introduction. Apple is telling people who bought a mac less two years ago its now usless. Gotta buy a new one to use our newest ipod/iphone.

don't forget the ipod took off when Apple moved to using USB as a connector.

I can see them adding support for lightpeak/thunderbolt though.
 
Great! I'd love to see the return of something as elegant as the Parallel Port. I loved how huge and bulky it was, and that you needed a screwdriver to plug / unplug it. Ahh, those were the days!

Anyway, what would you "dock" your "ultrabook" to, other than displays? I don't see many people who want to use their ultra portable notebook as a desktop, since it's underpowered anyway.
 
making lightpeak/thunderbolt the only interface will leave a significant chunk of customers out in the cold. As much as Apple likes it Cloud syncing isn't going to work for many people due to lack of bandwidth.

assuming a 2012 introduction. Apple is telling people who bought a mac less two years ago its now usless. Gotta buy a new one to use our newest ipod/iphone.

don't forget the ipod took off when Apple moved to using USB as a connector.

I can see them adding support for lightpeak/thunderbolt though.

It should be pointed out that iOS 5 also lets one sync wirelessly to their computer over the local network. Though at the moment you do have to initially have them connected over USB to activate the feature.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

What I want to know is why Ultrabooks will be a big deal at CES considering the MacBook Air has been out for years. What can an ultrabook do that a MacBook Air can't?
 
I believe the only thing Apple had to do with it was the choice of the Mini DisplayPort connector.

But technically it's not a mini-displayport connector. It's a thunderbolt connector that is backwards compatible with mini-displayport.

Why would Intel make a connector that is more proprietary and probably more expensive that apple's implementation of thunderbolt ?

Wouldn't it be simplier to make the same thunderbolt connector that Apple supposedly licenses from Intel ?

I think Intel owns the "technology" but Apple owns the connector. So in essence they both "own" it.
 
The new docking system would incorporate a Thunderbolt connector as well as what appears to be a proprietary connector as well.

Is it really proprietary when it is meant to be an industry standard?
 
Wow what a disgusting little solution. That plug looks like it was made in the 80s. lol look at the 2 LEDs!

The cinema display solution isn't that great either though. I don't get why the 2 cables have to be perpendicular to each other like that.
 
Simpler, but more expensive: in a pure Thunderbolt device like the Cinema Display, to support USB 2.0, FireWire 800, Ethernet, audio, etc, there must be controller chips for each on the Thunderbolt device itself.

It's not acting as a hub in a classic sense, "extending" those connectors from the laptop -- it's duplicating those types of connectors by including a full additional controller for each, and connecting them all to the laptop via PCI-e.

To put it another way: it's not acting like half-a-dozen extension cables all at once; it's acting like half-a-dozen expansion cards at once, because (for all intents and purposes) it is.

It's an elegantly versatile way of handling the age-old docking station problem, but it comes with a high price tag, because it means the docking station needs to be half a computer all on its own. For something like the MacBook Air, which doesn't include it's own Firewire or Ethernet controllers to begin with, that makes a lot of sense. But you can understand why PC manufacturers might want to save costs by avoiding some of that unnecessary duplication, which is presumably one of the features of this extended port.

(But then you're halfway back to the problems always posed by proprietary docking ports. Personally, I doubt this semi-TB docking system will really take off. In the long run, the costs of controller chips for Apple's approach isn't that much, and the resulting benefits in versatility are probably worth it.)

Best possible explanation of how TB =! bundle-o-cables
 
The cinema display solution isn't that great either though. I don't get why the 2 cables have to be perpendicular to each other like that.

It's because the straight cable MagSafe connectors were prone to breaking.
 
I don't see many people who want to use their ultra portable notebook as a desktop, since it's underpowered anyway.

"underpowered" ?? For what exactly ? Running Photoshop with 50MP pictures ? Raytracing/editing the next Ice-Age movie ? Sure....

But most people use their puters for very little more than watching UTube and chatting on facebook :rolleyes:

Even if your run a bit more demanding tasks, the power of an Core(2)Duo MacMini or iMac is still quite enough for most people.

When I was in France recently the only computer I took with me was my PowerBook, yep thats a G4 at 1.67GHz ! The only thing that really annoyed my was the small screen (17") :p

If I was to buy an UltraBook/MBA I would buy it it to replace my 2010 iMac (which it should do in terms of CPU-power) and add a bigger screen to it while at home.
 
A lot of the times I only use the power connector on my display so I don;t have to reboot my screen. With a combined plug I don't have that option, I'd have to add a a power cable to my desk.

Upshot of not having to buy Apples proprietary solutions is that you can replicate that for a few bucks. Second, if there is demand i am sure there will be such cables at the market. Standard, if anything, will be about ports and distance between them.

p.s. i didn't quite understand what you meant with reboot your screen. who the hell boots a screen? and why is it needed?
 
Simpler, but more expensive: in a pure Thunderbolt device like the Cinema Display, to support USB 2.0, FireWire 800, Ethernet, audio, etc, there must be controller chips for each on the Thunderbolt device itself.

It's not acting as a hub in a classic sense, "extending" those connectors from the laptop -- it's duplicating those types of connectors by including a full additional controller for each, and connecting them all to the laptop via PCI-e.

To put it another way: it's not acting like half-a-dozen extension cables all at once; it's acting like half-a-dozen expansion cards at once, because (for all intents and purposes) it is.

It's an elegantly versatile way of handling the age-old docking station problem, but it comes with a high price tag, because it means the docking station needs to be half a computer all on its own. For something like the MacBook Air, which doesn't include it's own Firewire or Ethernet controllers to begin with, that makes a lot of sense. But you can understand why PC manufacturers might want to save costs by avoiding some of that unnecessary duplication, which is presumably one of the features of this extended port.

(But then you're halfway back to the problems always posed by proprietary docking ports. Personally, I doubt this semi-TB docking system will really take off. In the long run, the costs of controller chips for Apple's approach isn't that much, and the resulting benefits in versatility are probably worth it.)

I know Apple is not in the business of serving business, or trying to fit into peoples current setups, but still. Buying a Cinema display is ten times more expensive than buying a nice docking solution (ok, perhaps not ten, but still). Said docking solution could furthermore cater to my personal needs. E.g. do i need extended hard drive space? A faster GPU? A blu-ray drive? USB ports to hook up (pre connected) peripherals.

Modularity oft-times make sense. This situation is no different. The reason Apple isn't doing it is because they want you to buy into their world, where everyone has a CinemaDisplay or simply put can stuff it.

----------

Why are we still using cables? Why not try to come up with some super-high-speed close range wireless connector?

You still need power.

(Yes i know there are solutions "out there", but they're not really out there)

----------

The intension of this is one word, cheap.
One cable which includes all the ports is still a lot cheaper than building all those controllers into lets say a display.
Since many PC are cheap they want them getting a cheap way to get all those ports and the cheapest way is a proprietary cable/connector.

cheap > overpriced. why pay more for less?

p.s. the word you are looking for is "standardized cable/connector". Apples cable is proprietary.

----------

Yeah, I have a dock for my HP work laptop, As soon as I put it on the dock, it's connected to power, ethernet, dual monitors, keyboard, mouse and headphones. It's extremely convenient. I wish my MacBook had something like that.

Likewise. Then i would probably make good of my pondering about selling my PC, now that i finally have my MBA repaired so that i can run windows on it. Also, ability to use an external GPU would be nice too, if i ever feel like doing PC-gaming again.

----------

Apple could simply move every iPod/iPhone to Thunderbolt on the next rev. They all have Cloud syncing anyway (PC-Free remember?). But now if you want to connect to the computer you'll need Thunderbolt. Watch how fast all non-Mac computers and third-party card manufacturers start shipping with Thunderbolt.

Smart move. Not. First, Thunderbolt is coming, regardless. Not because Apple is great, but because Thunderbolt is. Second, way to piss consumers off.
 
Great! I'd love to see the return of something as elegant as the Parallel Port. I loved how huge and bulky it was, and that you needed a screwdriver to plug / unplug it. Ahh, those were the days!

Anyway, what would you "dock" your "ultrabook" to, other than displays? I don't see many people who want to use their ultra portable notebook as a desktop, since it's underpowered anyway.

Harddrives, diskdrives, PCI expansion slots, GPUs, peripherals. Pretty much everything and anything. You see, in the real world people have varying needs. Varying needs best served through modularity, rather than "what Apple thinks is best, is best for all".

This way, we ultra book owners get to our work space (at home or in the office), plug in one cable, and we are good to go.

Finally, as already mentioned, Apple makes some of the bulkiest adapters out there. In fact, they're so bulky i don't carry them with me, despite that i really should. Further, this is a sketch. No one has any interest in making it larger than necessary.
 
It's because the straight cable MagSafe connectors were prone to breaking.

That's a very old Apple problem, and it has something to do with the weird rubber they use on their cables! All the way back to 2001 I recall having their cables where the rubber wrapper shrunk and left the insulation exposed, the extra stress of course caused the wires inside to break, and the rest is history.

Well that, and not using very good glue I suppose.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

What I want to know is why Ultrabooks will be a big deal at CES considering the MacBook Air has been out for years. What can an ultrabook do that a MacBook Air can't?

Boot Windows straight out of the box.

p.s. MBA is an ultrabook.
 
No-one here seems to be an expert and I'm sure Intel know what they are doing.

Generally (this will upset some people) Apple will compromise on performance for the same of aesthetics. If it's for the iMac then it's a home/consumer market and looking pretty and performing "ok" is what matters.

The PC market is like the Mac Pro market it's got the be "technically" the best product, even if it's a little thicker, or needs a thicker wire, or a larger case.

If we wait, I'm sure we will see the reasoning behind what's been done.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.