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.
LaCie Hub Now Shipping, Connects eSATA Drives via Thunderbolt
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It doesn't matter how "awesome" Thunderbolt is. As long as it remains stupidly overpriced, it's going to remain a glorified display connector as long as USB 3.0 and Firewire are available.
USB 3.0 is likely coming to the next generation of Macs. Firewire 800 is "good enough" for most people who need a bit of extra speed.
No matter how amazing something is, if it's ridiculously overpriced, "good enough" will fill in and own the market. They need to get the pricing down or Thunderbolt will be another expensive curiosity that never took off outside niche markets, just like Microchannel back in the day.
USB 3.0 is likely coming to the next generation of Macs. Firewire 800 is "good enough" for most people who need a bit of extra speed.
No matter how amazing something is, if it's ridiculously overpriced, "good enough" will fill in and own the market. They need to get the pricing down or Thunderbolt will be another expensive curiosity that never took off outside niche markets, just like Microchannel back in the day.
I agree.
Thunderbolt is like Betamax. Yes, it's better but the cost & slow adoption rate will kill it.
Buy the time Thunderbolt ever catches on, we may have USB4, which may surpass the throughput of TB.
USB is also back wards compatible, which is a big plus with all the current USB device/peripherals in consumer hands.
Nice misdirection to outside the laptop. The original assertion was about what should be on the edge of the laptop. However, if want to talk about what is external to the laptop, fine.
Again no. What essentially talking about is an external port multiplier. This 2 port eSATA device is an external port multiplier.
Your argument is that some other external port multipliers have slightly different functionality and some are cheaper. Fine. However, for the most part once combine a port multiplier with an external power supply and cooling the price jumps to over the $100 range (i.e., substantially higher than the price of a eSATA cable. That's was the indirect point that the orignal comment was trying to dig at. )
Yeah but this thing can possibly port multiply the port multipliers (plug one of both of those devices into this device). It should but the listed technical specs don't say one way or the other. Your eSATA enclosures are "chain enders". They have to be at the end of the chain. This device should be a chain extender, it makes the chain longer.
If it doesn't work with enclosures with port multipliers the price isn't well justified. If it does then it is more expensive, but it also does something those others don't do. Whether that has value to the users or not depends upon what they want to do. If someone already has enclosures they want to hook to a Mac Laptop then this can have higher value than buying yet another enclosure. It is also smaller so it is easier to transport.
Except for external displays, which can be connected with a $10 cable. Thunderbolt is the video out port, which some people still find useful. USB is not going to displace HDMI or DisplayPort in the near future. Why does everyone think that because the icon above their mini-DisplayPort port changed that it's suddenly only meant for connecting hard drives?
USB devices require application specific bridge chipsets. Thus far there aren't that many classes of SuperSpeed bridge chips available. Granted, we will likely see a proliferation of them later this year. But for classes of devices that already provide PCIe connections, and where a USB bridge would present problems, Thunderbolt's PCIe component will be useful. It might also find much more rapid adoption on the Windows side where the drivers already exist for many PCIe connected devices.
Yeah, right? The money I spent on my IIci was only eclipsed by what I spent putting 32MB of RAM in it back then. Yikes!
Except there's no need for a VHS/Beta war - the products don't compete. USB3 will inevitably be the cheapest, most widely available way of hooking up a fast backup drive to your PC, but its not going to let you add ExpressCard slots or external PCIe cards (see http://www.sonnettech.com/product/thunderbolt/), high-end RAID systems, or, like the Apple Thunderbolt Display, let you hook up your display, Gigabit Ethernet, webcam, sound system, microphone, Firewire and extra USB with a single wire.
I think, ironically, it would be a big boost for Thunderbolt if someone came out with a Thunderbolt-to-USB3 adapter. The real killer would be the mythical Thunderbolt Dock (that wasn't built into a nice but expensive and single-purpose display).
Apple needs to pump-prime Thunderbolt by producing a nice, sexy laptop "dock" that will appeal to people who aren't in the market for a $2000 SSD RAID or professional video digitiser. The third parties have had over a year, but products like the Belkin dock are looking a day late and a dollar short. Heck, buy the time that is available, new Macs might have USB3.
Extremely unlikely. USB is a relatively slowly evolving standard. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Serial_Bus ).
USB 2.0 passed in 2000 ( had multiple year adoption rate)
USB 3.0 passed in 2008 ( didn't really get deployed until 2010-11 )
Now that it being almost universally deployed on new board designs it would probably be at least 3-4 more years before passed a new standard. That is plenty of time for TB to get off the ground.
In fact, it would aid USB to wait to see if TB can help drive down the cost of optical connections. An optical option for version 4.0 is the next obvious move since that is one aspect that was intended for 3.0 but got dumped due to problems with pricing in deployment. If TB moves from 10Gb/s to 100Gb/s and USB 4.0 moves up to the bandwidth cap that TB vacated then their relative positions won't change much.
TB is probably not moving up in bandwidth till 2014 (http://www.anandtech.com/show/5405/the-first-thunderbolt-speed-bump-likely-in-2014). USB 4 could come in 2016-8 to fill the vacated spot without loosing much ground at all since it has the larger inertia.
That is one of the reasons why the standards committee didn't want to be boxed in if TB usurped the connector for those increased speeds.
While USB 3.0 and TB overlap in some usages, neither one is meant to completely eliminate the other. The betamax/vhs argument is fundamentally flawed in that both were about recording video. UBS and TB are not that highly overlapped. The "Universal" in USB is more about ubiquitous than "the one port to rule them all". Likewise the spin about TB being the "the one port to rule them all" is also mostly smoke. It is the one port you can multiplex your legacy data protocols through. The value is based primarily on aggregation with low latency. Aggregation doesn't necessarily lead to lower number of the legacy ports. The number of those ports deploy doesn't necessarily go down. It it he point-to-point travel between enclosures that is the issue.
OK, why such anger?
Chill geeks! It's just an adapter, don't buy one if you don't need one, but don't get so flustered at the price, or if you don't understand the need, K?
I ORDERED ONE! This is PERFECT to connect my Mercury Elite AL-Pro Qx2 12TB RAID to my new MacMini (it ain't just MacBook Pros that have TB'olt ports). This will blow the socks off the FW 800 port, looks like 2 to 3 times the speed. I'm feeding 3 AppleTVs, I need my speed!
BTW, the MacRumors article is wrong (don't believe the first salesperson you speak to). I "spoke to someone at LaCie's sales center" also, and she said "No first batch was "sold out", and they're not "waiting for a shipment". They took them off the site because they had a warehouse issue, after only 2 orders, but they are taking phone orders until they fix that. They have plenty, and mine will be here early next week!
Chill geeks! It's just an adapter, don't buy one if you don't need one, but don't get so flustered at the price, or if you don't understand the need, K?
I ORDERED ONE! This is PERFECT to connect my Mercury Elite AL-Pro Qx2 12TB RAID to my new MacMini (it ain't just MacBook Pros that have TB'olt ports). This will blow the socks off the FW 800 port, looks like 2 to 3 times the speed. I'm feeding 3 AppleTVs, I need my speed!
BTW, the MacRumors article is wrong (don't believe the first salesperson you speak to). I "spoke to someone at LaCie's sales center" also, and she said "No first batch was "sold out", and they're not "waiting for a shipment". They took them off the site because they had a warehouse issue, after only 2 orders, but they are taking phone orders until they fix that. They have plenty, and mine will be here early next week!
The first 12 months of USB 3.0 was slow too. The standard passed in November 2008. It wasn't until about a year later that even the first products started to show up. It wasn't until 2011 till most new motherboards shipped with it.
Many folks have their knickers in the twist because of some imagined race between TB and USB 3.0 where the first to some imaginary finish line wipes out the other. That race doesn't really exist and the adoption rate really are that far off from one another. USB 3.0 was a bit slow because it has a huge deployed inertia to overcome (billions of USB 2.0 ports and razor thin margins). TB is a bit slow because it is relatively new tech and there is only a single controller supplier.
This sets the wrong notion. There are some Intel reference boards that have TB controllers onboard. However, that isn't particularly different than Apple's motherboards that have TB controllers onboard.
There is no immediate term roadmap for putting TB into chipsets that most vendors will have to buy just yet. Those system vendors looking to shave costs will just drop the optional TB controller from the reference design.
In so far as many Intel reference designs have on-board DisplayPort (due to Core iX processor having integrated graphics), it will probably still be most common for there to be VGA or DVI connectors on the motherboard as opposed to mini-DisplayPort( hence easily also TB ) one. The bigger issue is getting the number of mDP monitors to rise.
That is not particularly bad since a significantly large fraction of PC boards come with 1394a (i.e., FW400 ) ports on them and at one time most consumer video cameras. They became relatively common after Nvidia and a few others have put FW400 support into the standard chipsets and Microsoft put standard support into Windows. ( only Intel baulked at that )
FireWire's primary problem was that it couldn't get the bulk of the devices that adopted 1394a to move to 1394b (FW800). Thunderbolt is unlikely to have that problem if correctly evolved. Since it aggregates the older data protocol traffic if it just increases as as those increase (e.g., as USB 3.0 and PCI-e v3.0 become ubiquitous increase bandwidth so that can encapsulate those also into the traffic mix. ) then it should manage to hold its ground.
Because that market instantly starts to crater once Apple ships boxes with USB 3.0 on-board. They'd be left with a static and shrinking market of those interim TB capable Macs that skipped adding USB 3.0.
The other reason is that there is likely more long term value in a USB 3.0 + DVD + FW docking station box than in something that is purely a USB 3.0 hub. However, there is not much value in making a USB 3.0 device targeted at Macs until Apple puts mainstream xHCI based USB 3.0 driver support into OS X. A significant issue in USB 3.0 adoption on Mac is also Apple deliver the necessary software.
Finally, until Intel ships the much lower cost Port Ridge controllers (http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news...lt-controller-could-broaden-reach-of-spec.ars) which can only be used in "chain ending" ( devices with just 1 port that is pragmatically data only) it is going to be tough to hit the very low price point people are going to likely expect for such a device.
I don't know how well one port thunderbolt (nonchainable) devices would work for those computers with only one thunderbolt port. I believe the only apple computers with more than one port is the 27" iMac, correct? It's a real limiting factor toward one-port devices adoption, unless some thunderbolt hubs come out as well.
They will work equally as well as "chain ending" mini Display Port devices do. Those are also chain enders.
The only problem cases are where have legacy monitor and a one port TB device to connect. In those context having two TB ports would be better. Those can exist now though ( e.g. two Display Port monitors want to connect ).
The core tension though is likely going to be between price. The bus powered (no power supply), minimal sized enclosure with highly limited functionality (USB 3.0 only) that is priced at $40-80 and the $100+ box that can be a chain extender.
For the sub $80 devices, "chain ender" will probably be a common tradeoff.
Similarly, one of the value proposition problems the $100+ devices have is that they only do one thing. (only USB 3.0 , only eSATA). If a "chain ender" has all the connections needed at the end of a chain then again it is not a huge problem.
TB Hubs are dubious devices. You can only have 7 devices in the TB network. A hub knocks that number down by one and having not actually connected to another legacy port device. Furthermore folks will expect multiple bus powered port so it will need a power supply which will push the price up. Finally, since the TB controller is a defacto switch you also cut the bandwidth down along the multiple branches coming out of the "hub". ( just like ethernet hubs have shrunk in the context of smaller real, automanaged switches. )
There is much higher utility in making the 2 port TB computer more commonplace. It is likely only temporary that only the upper end iMacs have it. If Apple drops ODDs on MBPs then can move a USB socket to other side and have two TB be commonplace on MBPs. There is equally as much edge room on Mini if just sacrifice a USB socket.
On what planet are these used? I've never seen one of these come out of all the crappy WD enclosures I've ripped open in the past. The only saving grace of junky enclosures I've used has been this: at least when they die, I can grab the 2 TB drive out and stick it into my Mac Pro. Out of all the drives I've ripped apart at home, work and for friends, I've never seen one of these.
The consumer only sees one thing.
USB - Easy to use. Many periphreals. Cheap price point.
Thunderbolt - Does same thing, costs more and not back wards compatible UNLESS they buy a hub/adapter(which currently doesn't exist).
Also, has any PC vendors other than Apple implemented/adopted the Thunderbolt port?
Just because it's faster and more efficient doesn't mean it will survive.
USB is trenched in consumer minds & easy to use.
Blu-ray has higher throughput & capacity but I don't see consumers running to get BD burners because DVD is cheap & does the job.
Why would a consumer want to switch to a more expensive port that does the same thing from their POV.
IMO, Thunderbolt may survive as a niche if there is enough adoption to generate a modest margin off it's products unless Apple & Intel eat some cost & encourage manufacturers to make products at a price comparable to USB.
How hard is it to make a ****ing TB to USB3 adapter? TB has been out for a year now and no manufacturer has considered creating it. All you need is TB to USB3 adapter, and everyone will make use of the TB port.
WTF was Intel thinking releasing USB3 and TB at the same time? One of them will die and it seems like it will be TB.
WTF was Intel thinking releasing USB3 and TB at the same time? One of them will die and it seems like it will be TB.
According to LaCie, this device does not support Port Multipliers; not possible.
As some have suggested, I see the main use being connection of older, legacy disk arrays in video production houses, permitting them to be connected to some of the newer computers available. Many of these legacy devices have a multitude of drives, managed by an embedded RAID controller. They all appear as one large, logic volume to the eSATA connection. Some may have even more expensive FiberChannel or IfiniBand connections which make Thunderbolt costs look trivial. For a heart attack, take a look at 10Gb LAN costs.
For example, some of the newer iMacs with i5 and i7 processors can encode video at rates similar to or exceeding their older Mac Pros or other Macintosh computers. Getting faster access improves their productivity, instead of relying on older, and slower LAN speeds.
For many of the commenters here, the product is too expensive. Yes, there are lower cost alternatives available that get the job done.
On the other hand, there are also those who look for productivity improvements, who can determine if there is a payback for any investment made for tools that support their business.
You just won't find those people commenting here. There is plenty of gear targeted to and purchased by these "prosumers" and professionals. For any investment, they are looking for devices that same them time and money. That is what I think LaCie is aiming for.
Heck LaCie even has USB 3.0 and eSATA devices for those people, too. As do Seagate, WD, and many other. And for the DIY crowd, there are places like Newegg and Frys. Never forget, though, that time is money.
As has been previously stated, the format war analogy just doesn't make sense in the context of USB vs Thunderbolt. The competition here is between Thunderbolt and HDMI 1.3/1.4 + ExpressCard 2.0, mini-PCIe or ePCIe.
Which would you rather have? Thunderbolt is capable of driving the vast majority of displays in existence with a sub $10 adapter (dual-link DVI monitors require a more expensive adapter), whereas HDMI isn't quite as flexible. Most ExpressCards in existence are limited to 200 Mbps. There are even fewer general purpose mini-PCIe or ePCIe solutions on the market than Thunderbolt. As an OEM, Thunderbolt allows you to make much smaller devices than the alternatives while still allowing for the possibility of adding high-bandwidth, low-latency adapters. The discussion PC manufacturers are having is not whether consumers will buy more Thunderbolt or USB accessories in the long run, it's about how to best offer a high-bandwidth I/O option to those that require it as they continue to attempt to make devices ever smaller.
I find it interesting how compelled everyone seems to be to stick something into this particular hole. When people look at PCIe or ExpressCard slots they don't seem to feel nearly as intent on cramming something in there.
Also, by calling this particular device an "eSATA hub", LaCie is doing it a bit of a disservice. By all indications, it's a fairly capable 2-port SATA host controller with 2 eSATA 3Gb/s ports. With a bit of driver/firmware magic, this hardware could support (hardware) RAID 0 and 1, and 6Gb/s link rates.
Which would you rather have? Thunderbolt is capable of driving the vast majority of displays in existence with a sub $10 adapter (dual-link DVI monitors require a more expensive adapter), whereas HDMI isn't quite as flexible. Most ExpressCards in existence are limited to 200 Mbps. There are even fewer general purpose mini-PCIe or ePCIe solutions on the market than Thunderbolt. As an OEM, Thunderbolt allows you to make much smaller devices than the alternatives while still allowing for the possibility of adding high-bandwidth, low-latency adapters. The discussion PC manufacturers are having is not whether consumers will buy more Thunderbolt or USB accessories in the long run, it's about how to best offer a high-bandwidth I/O option to those that require it as they continue to attempt to make devices ever smaller.
I find it interesting how compelled everyone seems to be to stick something into this particular hole. When people look at PCIe or ExpressCard slots they don't seem to feel nearly as intent on cramming something in there.
Also, by calling this particular device an "eSATA hub", LaCie is doing it a bit of a disservice. By all indications, it's a fairly capable 2-port SATA host controller with 2 eSATA 3Gb/s ports. With a bit of driver/firmware magic, this hardware could support (hardware) RAID 0 and 1, and 6Gb/s link rates.
TB doesn't do the same thing. That has been the huge fail with the initial marketing kool-aid trying to position TB as the "one port to rule them all and replacement for everthing including USB".
The consumers only see TB as doing the same thing now because folks keep perpetrating that delusion even as Intel has now backed far away from it.
"... Acer ... a magnesium-aluminum alloy cover (in Onyx Black), HDMI / USB 3.0 / Thunderbolt (!) ports and an SSD for good measure ..."
http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/08/acer-aspire-a5-ultrabook-announced-ces-2012/
"...Gigabtye ... They both also offer a GeForce GT 640M GPU with 2GB of memory, up to a 750GB hard drive as well as USB 3.0, Bluetooth 4.0 and Thunderbolt connections. .. "
http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/05/gigabyte-unveils-u2442-ultrabooks-and-p2542g-gaming-laptop/
"... Lenovo ... it packs Dolby Home Theatre sound, optional NVIDIA Optimus graphics, up to 1TB in storage and Thunderbolt (!), making this the first Windows PC to make use of that standard. ..."
http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/05/lenovo-announces-seven-laptops-for-small-businesses/
In part the larger flood of boxes have been waiting on the new, non version 1.0 implementation of the controllers, that Intel is going to roll out this Spring. But the designs have been dribbling out in preview shows for those who have bothered to look.
This is extremely similar to the "USB 3.0 is doomed" talk that happened 1.5-2 years ago as vendors waited for the early adopters to take the initial version of the controllers and "work out the kinks and bugs" because adopting in larger numbers.
USB 3.0 is now well on its way to being mainstream. TB is aimed a big higher priced device grouping but it too with take a couple of years to fully get its share of design wins and deployments. In the real world, people just don't wave they hands and new products pop onto the market in a couple of weeks. At least not quality products.
If it uses that "faster" to provide services USB cannot then it will. The point is not faster to a single HDD/SSD disk or any other single function connectivity.
That is more so driven by the higher costs of Blu-Ray disks at this point. The Blu-ray players have dropped into the same price zone where DVDs got high traction. Even BD burners are getting close to the sweet spot now.
Blu-ray adoption rates are very similar to what DVD adoptions rates were. Most of the "doom and gloom" about Blu-Ray is from FUD campaigns from alternative distribution advocates. Besides, I have yet to see a Blu-Ray player that doesn't play DVDs. Blu-Ray is to DVDs as USB 3.0 is to USB 2.0. You've recycled the spin argument into the wrong thread.
That aside, again this is just repetition of the flawed argument that USB 3.0 and TB are the "same thing". They don't overlap anywhere near as much as DVD and Blu-ray do.
It is only more expensive if you primarily assign it to a single task. As an industry standard docking port slot is better than the proprietary stuff that is out there now.
Given the overall large personal computer shift to laptops, it is long past the point that there should be a standard docking port connector. That is essentially what is going to be what Intel pushes through with TB.
There are secondary usages that folks will leverage it for but given that foundation it is extremely low danger of it disappearing. Primarily because there are no creditable competitors for that function. Nor are there for several other (but not ubiquitous) extremely low latency interconnect contexts. USB 3.0 is capable enough to make a large number of usages for FW disappear but not all. A combination of TB and USB 3.0 can blunt much of what some others ( FW , eSATA , etc. ) provide.
The primary fallacy is that all of the devices have to be price comparable. They don't have to be.
The only huge threat to TB is that it doesn't move out of this status where Intel is the only implementer. One of the perceived lingering threats of TB is that there is some patent/licensing troll that will jump up later and suck margin out of TB devices. Over time that is dissipating but with one and only one implementer that seems to be a very real potential threat to some.
Last edited:
Well, long term they are going to have trouble supporting that price point.
For now, with no competitors, they will get some buyers, but the functionality is limited.
Yeah but those are better turned into boxes that expose the RAID controller's PCI-e interface directly to TB. It is a fixed market because going forward those boxes will increase to being TB boxes as opposed to eSATA boxes. SATA is actually a bandwidth constraint in those contexts.
There are some SMART and EFI booting support benefits to only presenting a SATA interface though so they won't completely disappear.
But again there isn't a large functionality overlap. LAN/SAN allow multiple computers to hook to shared storage. TB is a direct attached storage (DAS) solution. Again the single function/user high cost versus shared function amortized cost over multiple connections issue.
You pay more for FC, IB , or 10GbE, but you also get more. That more has different value for different people based upon how much/little they can leverage it to make a return on the higher costs.
You lead a sheltered life.
Many of the low-cost USB 2.0 drives have these Frankenstein drives with a USB micro connector instead of the expected SATA connector.
All in the interest of high-volume, low-cost storage for the masses.
If you review the history, this is exactly what many proposed in the early days of FireWire - a direct FireWire connection instead of the FireWire-to-PATA/IDE bridge in most drives of that very early age.
the downside of that embedded USB 2.0 interface is little opportunity to repurpose the drive as you'd like to do - extracting the drives from those "crappy cases".
Those embedded USB connectors on drives used with some externals may explain why there is sometimes a price discrepancy making some externals less expensive than their bare-drive brethren.
I am sure you meant Hershey's, not hersey's!
And it is absolutely criminal what Hershey's has done to the Cadbury brand here in the US.
Connoisseurs of good chocolate will immediately be able to tell the difference between a Cadbury bar manufactured in the US, to those manufactured and/or sold in the Commonwealth countries!
Hershey corporate says that they tweak the taste and flavor to the preferences of the local market.
I say, bunk!
Once you taste real Cadbury chocolate made in the UK, Australia, or New Zealand, you'll never buy a US made Cadbury bar in the US again. As for Canada, examine that label closely!
Sorry for the rant; I could not resist!
johnnyturbouk
macrumors 68000
I new this would be the case when I first copped my 2011 MBP 17"
TB is totally useless for me atm other than external displays and super-overpriced peripherals, with yesterday's tech.
I got my owc express card esata card for $20. Vs $200 for a TB daisy-chain
Still, maybe I could shell out $1k on a TB display to stop my tb port gathering dust.
I think apple are slowly turning thier back on the conventional mac ans OS
As they see the future in iPads and iOS
TB is totally useless for me atm other than external displays and super-overpriced peripherals, with yesterday's tech.
I got my owc express card esata card for $20. Vs $200 for a TB daisy-chain
Still, maybe I could shell out $1k on a TB display to stop my tb port gathering dust.
I think apple are slowly turning thier back on the conventional mac ans OS
As they see the future in iPads and iOS