Is Sony Fragmenting Thunderbolt? Apple, not Intel, Applies for Thunderbolt Trademark

[toke lahti]

With direct USB3 and Thunderbolt compatibility we would have a port / ports that have wide array of available devices instead of the current Apple adaptation that isn't seeing much use at all apart from displays and couple of EXPENSIVE devices from Blackmagic, LaCie and Promise that are not even available yet. For the fun of it try searching Thunderbolt on Apple web store. How many items did you find? Thats right, not a single device is available, not even an adapter cable.

If Apple would like new mbp owners to be able to use TB as widely as possible, they would have had a hub with lots of different ports on sale at the same day as new mbp.
And by not giving us usb3, situation is funny, that TB is advertized to have state-of-the-art device from Blackmagic that has been available couple of years only with usb3.
There might anyway be problem with usb-tb combo ports, if they look same as plane usb3 ports. Maybe it isn't easy to make all ports combos. eSATAp ports look different than plane usb ports, so there's no confusion.

 

[xxBURT0Nxx]

Sure I would, and then I'd get to plug the monitor last in the chain and need to unplug it every time I swap out a TB device from said chain. The crux of my argument.

It makes no sense, especially in a bus type configuration, to pair displays and storage devices.

Actually, this is 2011. Bus type configurations make no sense period.

Again I ask you what about a TB hub where you could plug your 6 devices in and freely eject discs at your will and leave your monitor plugged in?

and what about an iMac with 2 TB ports, you can leave an external monitor plugged in at all times... i think we can assume that mbps will eventually come with more than 1 tb port, but maybe not.

 

[panda bear]

I should probably care about the thunderbolt thing more than I do but the only thing I was thinking when reading this was "Why are we still putting VGA on laptops?"

Same.

I re-read to see if maybe I read it wrong.

 

[toke lahti]

Sony could have used IEEE 1394 like everyone else. Also, I don't think Apple prevented Sony from using the standard port design.

Apple could have used IEEE 1394 like everyone else. Also, I don't think Sony prevented Apple from using the standard port design.

 

[ehoui]

What are you on about ? On a Thunderbolt MBP, you have to disconnect the monitor to add to the chain. It's that simple.

There's nothing faulty in my logic, premise or conclusion. As shipped by Apple, Thunderbolt requires unplugging your monitor to add something to the chain.

Are you speaking about Thunderbolt (the connector technology) or the fact that the first MBP with it has only one Thunderbolt connector? You have nailed a very specific problem on one device, but that's not a reflection of Thunderbolt itself. Didn't mean to intrude into a conversation of pedantry. I'll leave you to it.

 

[xxBURT0Nxx]

Apple could have used IEEE 1394 like everyone else. Also, I don't think Sony prevented Apple from using the standard port design.

i don't think the argument is over the name used vs sony using a 4pin connector + adapter for power VS the standard 6pin connector.

 

[Belly-laughs]

Sure I would, and then I'd get to plug the monitor last in the chain and need to unplug it every time I swap out a TB device from said chain. The crux of my argument.

It makes no sense, especially in a bus type configuration, to pair displays and storage devices.

Actually, this is 2011. Bus type configurations make no sense period.

first in chain your adaptor. sorted. 2011 port flora makes no sense.

 

[KnightWRX]

first in chain your adaptor.

Then the chain ends at the monitor... how does that make sense ?

Again I ask you what about a TB hub where you could plug your 6 devices in and freely eject discs at your will and leave your monitor plugged in?

Does TB even support HUB type configurations ? Because yes that would fix that issue. You'd still however be sharing your display bandwidth with your disk bandwidth, which is another problem with TB as Apple shipped it.

 

[xxBURT0Nxx]

Does TB even support HUB type configurations ? Because yes that would fix that issue. You'd still however be sharing your display bandwidth with your disk bandwidth, which is another problem with TB as Apple shipped it.

I don't see why it wouldn't, until we start seeing some actual accessories released I guess we won't know. If you can daisy chain 6 devices, I don't see why you wouldn't be able to plug in 1 "device" with 6 other TB ports.

There is also the possibility of multiple TB ports on one computer (ala iMac) which also solves your problem... monitor(s) on one, disc(s) on the other.

I think you need to let the technology mature for a little bit because I see all of your problems (sans display bandwidth) solved within a year. The display bandwidth will likely be solved when they make the switch from copper to optical. I also think that will be a very few and far between problem.

 

[KnightWRX]

I don't see why it wouldn't

Because Intel keeps harping on and on about daisy chains and One Cable as a touted advantage ?

http://www.intel.com/technology/io/thunderbolt/index.htm

Let's not speculate about Star or Tree type topologies. There's no documentation that indicates it's even possible.

Oh, another funny tidbit, Intel seems to think Thunderbolt is their Trademark :

http://www.intel.com/sites/sitewide/en_US/tradmarx.htm?iid=ftr+trademark

... Thunderbolt ... are trademarks of Intel Corporation in the U.S. and/or other countries.

I wonder where this little gem is headed as far as Intel and Apple are concerned. Intel obviously hasn't registered the trademark since they use the ™ symbol instead of the ®.

 

[xxBURT0Nxx]

Because Intel keeps harping on and on about daisy chains and One Cable as a touted advantage ?

http://www.intel.com/technology/io/thunderbolt/index.htm

Let's not speculate about Star or Tree type topologies. There's no documentation that indicates it's even possible.

Oh, another funny tidbit, Intel seems to think Thunderbolt is their Trademark :

http://www.intel.com/sites/sitewide/en_US/tradmarx.htm?iid=ftr+trademark



I wonder where this little gem is headed as far as Intel and Apple are concerned. Intel obviously hasn't registered the trademark since they use the ™ symbol instead of the ®.

Then just the same could be said on the reverse...

Lets not speculate, there is no documentation that it COULDN'T be possible, and there certainly is no reason other than your own pessimism to suggest that it wouldn't work.

And again, you act is if there will only ever be 1 TB port on a computer, obviously not true.

Plus judging by the prices of initial tb offerings i'm not seeing many scenarios where you are going to be adding more than 1 or 2 drives and a monitor.

 

[SilianRail]

I've never used FireWire/IEEE 1394/iLink. Do they play well together?

 

[diamond.g]

Then just the same could be said on the reverse...

Lets not speculate, there is no documentation that it COULDN'T be possible, and there certainly is no reason other than your own pessimism to suggest that it wouldn't work.

And again, you act is if there will only ever be 1 TB port on a computer, obviously not true.

Plus judging by the prices of initial tb offerings i'm not seeing many scenarios where you are going to be adding more than 1 or 2 drives and a monitor.

Since it seems to be based on the same chain idea as FW and SCSI.... Does FW allow for hubs (I know SCSI doesn't)? It would seem like a fairly trivial thing to allow a hub and allow for more than 7 devices. That 7 device limit seems arbitrary as well.

I've never used FireWire/IEEE 1394/iLink. Do they play well together?

yes they do it is all the same specification (assuming you're talking about FW400). Not very many PC makers adopted FW800, but since it is backwards compatible...

 

[xxBURT0Nxx]

Since it seems to be based on the same chain idea as FW and SCSI.... Does FW allow for hubs (I know SCSI doesn't)? It would seem like a fairly trivial thing to allow a hub and allow for more than 7 devices. That 7 device limit seems arbitrary as well.

it's a 6 device limit, but no more trivial than me trying to plug the 7th or 8th, or ____ device to the end of the daisy chain.

 

[tbrinkma]

Then just the same could be said on the reverse...

Lets not speculate, there is no documentation that it COULDN'T be possible, and there certainly is no reason other than your own pessimism to suggest that it wouldn't work.

And again, you act is if there will only ever be 1 TB port on a computer, obviously not true.

Plus judging by the prices of initial tb offerings i'm not seeing many scenarios where you are going to be adding more than 1 or 2 drives and a monitor.

Actually, we do have some evidence that it is possible.
Things we know:
1) From a protocol stand-point, Thunderbolt is essentially PCI-E over an external cable.
2) The 27" iMac has *two* Thunderbolt ports with full capabilities on each.

If the PCI-E bus can be split to two Thunderbolt ports, there's absolutely no reason to suspect that, at the very least, the two Thunderbolt channels can't be split apart giving two distinct branches.

 

[THink7]

Just spend 25 seconds under my desk. On my Mac the 'bottom' of the cable faces right. On my Dell the 'bottom' is on the left. So they're exactly the opposite of each other.

Whenever I hear someone say "always" in regards to computers I can be pretty sure they haven't checked many places.

100% True.

I've dealt with laptops which the USB ports have been upside own. I use read-only flash drives when servicing PC's. Was sure a surprise when i had to plug them in upside own.

I think it was an HP and an Acer, Premium quality.

 

[xxBURT0Nxx]

Actually, we do have some evidence that it is possible.
Things we know:
1) From a protocol stand-point, Thunderbolt is essentially PCI-E over an external cable.
2) The 27" iMac has *two* Thunderbolt ports with full capabilities on each.

If the PCI-E bus can be split to two Thunderbolt ports, there's absolutely no reason to suspect that, at the very least, the two Thunderbolt channels can't be split apart giving two distinct branches.

Thanks

The whole point of TB was that it didn't care about protocols, it could be adapted to anything, so why it wouldn't be adaptable to a hub makes no sense to me, i think it's just the pessimists that think it's impossible because intel doesn't specifically state that you can do it.

I see no reason why we couldn't have 1 hub/docking station with an ethernet port, 6 usb ports, 6 more TB ports, 6 firewire ports, etc and the user can chose which ports they want to use for their devices.

 

[SilianRail]

Thanks

The whole point of TB was that it didn't care about protocols, it could be adapted to anything, so why it wouldn't be adaptable to a hub makes no sense to me, i think it's just the pessimists that think it's impossible because intel doesn't specifically state that you can do it.

I see no reason why we couldn't have 1 hub/docking station with an ethernet port, 6 usb ports, 6 more TB ports, 6 firewire ports, etc and the user can chose which ports they want to use for their devices.

There are a lot of shattered dreams from the pie in the sky R&D engineers' vision to the actual implementation. Light peak was supposed to be the last dumb cable you ever needed, but switched to PCIe/Displayport when it actually came out.

 

[xxBURT0Nxx]

There are a lot of shattered dreams from the pie in the sky R&D engineers' vision to the actual implementation. Light peak was supposed to be the last dumb cable you ever needed, but switched to PCIe/Displayport when it actually came out.

? they couldn't implement fiber tech yet, so they used copper for now, it will be all optical and fiber in the future.

displayport is just a connector, it really has nothing else to do with it, they didn't use displayport tech to make lightpeak.

 

[diamond.g]

? they couldn't implement fiber tech yet, so they used copper for now, it will be all optical and fiber in the future.

displayport is just a connector, it really has nothing else to do with it, they didn't use displayport tech to make lightpeak.

I thought they planned on keeping some copper? Otherwise the 10W of power goes bye bye...

 

[Snowy_River]

Why do you think there is consumer confusion with USB Thunderbolt? Just stick in the device into USB port regardless what protocol it uses and it works. To me this sounds like "zero confusion port" since vast majority of consumers don't need to care about it what they stick into it. It just works. For those who require maximum bandwidth need to know how to link the devices correctly but the same applies to Apple's implementation.

A "zero confusion" port is one that does what you know it will do. If a USB style port could be a USB 1.1, a USB 2, a USB 3 or a ThB port, there is great potential for confusion. If I have a a ThB device that I want to plug into a computer, I can't tell just by looking if the ports on the computer are ThB ports, in this case. Is this a huge issue? No, not really. But is it an issue? Certainly.

For those who say that the USB 1.1 vs. USB 2 issue never caused any confusion, I'm not sure what world they're living in. I know that the fact that many computers still have USB 1.1 ports (i.e. the ports that are built into a keyboard USB hub), has caused much confusion among many people I know.

"The USB port on my keyboard is the most convenient port. Why is it that copying files off my thumb drive takes forever when I plug it in there?"

 

[xxBURT0Nxx]

I thought they planned on keeping some copper? Otherwise the 10W of power goes bye bye...

they used copper now to reduce the costs.

In the future if they want power they will need to keep copper in the cable but the data will all be transmitted via fiber for the 100Gbps transfer speeds.

according to intel though they wont supply power initially when they switch to fiber because that limits the lengths of the cables

I imagine that for consumers we will get hybrid type cables with fiber and copper for power since we don't need extra long cables to plug our accessories in.

the enterprise will probably get fiber only cables that way they can run them for extremely long distances and they could just have the drives or whatever else powered on the back end rather than through the cable.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Does TB even support HUB type configurations ? Because yes that would fix that issue. You'd still however be sharing your display bandwidth with your disk bandwidth, which is another problem with TB as Apple shipped it.

I'm curious what would happen if some new bandwidth hogging device wanted more bandwidth and ate into the monitor's share to maintain some huge resolution. Would the display drop to a lower resolution or go all blocky/flaky for a bit or would the other devices be forced to operate at lower bit-rates? Something would have to give if you got to the saturation point (multiple displays combined with a raid array could get you there sooner than some might think). I've never seen displays combined with general purpose data pipelines before so the issue has never come up.

We know what happens when you have too many hard drives connected to USB2 or even FW800 and they all try to operate at the same time. They slow down. But a monitor would either lose its usable signal (dark displays are so useful!) or it would have to drop to a lower resolution to use less bandwidth. Either way, it doesn't seem like the best idea to combine general data with display output, IMO. I'd rather see them on separate data paths.

 

[SilianRail]

I'm curious what would happen if some new bandwidth hogging device wanted more bandwidth and ate into the monitor's share to maintain some huge resolution. Would the display drop to a lower resolution or go all blocky/flaky for a bit or would the other devices be forced to operate at lower bit-rates? Something would have to give if you got to the saturation point (multiple displays combined with a raid array could get you there sooner than some might think). I've never seen displays combined with general purpose data pipelines before so the issue has never come up.

We know what happens when you have too many hard drives connected to USB2 or even FW800 and they all try to operate at the same time. They slow down. But a monitor would either lose its usable signal (dark displays are so useful!) or it would have to drop to a lower resolution to use less bandwidth. Either way, it doesn't seem like the best idea to combine general data with display output, IMO. I'd rather see them on separate data paths.

10 Gbps Displayport is separate from the 10 Gbps PCIe

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

10 Gbps Displayport is separate from the 10 Gbps PCIe

So it's not TB then and just sharing the same physical connector? Otherwise, how can TB separate anything? That would be holding back 10Gbps bandwidth that could be used for even more hard drives, etc. if you don't need the display. If it's just sharing the connector, then Apple's idea to share the port is even worse than I imagined (i.e. it should have its own dedicated port). The only reason to put the display on the TB bus is that you could daisy-chain displays at some point too (i.e. one port could drive two or three monitors daisy-chained and give a really nice display setup, especially for a notebook). I'm not sure offhand how much actual data throughput a given resolution needs, though. How many monitors could be reasonably driven off TB?