Notes of Interest on Thunderbolt and MacBook Pro

[AidenShaw]

Why? They're backwards and forwards compatible,

So they say now, I'd like to see some market acceptance of that idea before committing.

and the optical implementation is likely to have the transmitter 'baked in' to the connector at the computer side.

So, the problem is that the optical tranceivers are too expensive for the motherboard - and the solution is to buy one or two optical tranceivers with every cable?

It wouldn't surprise me if native optical connectors on the computer were more than 5 years off.

So in a few years the mini-display port version will be obsolete?

Electrical from the computer will be so much more useful - since it'll power small peripherals.

The cables already have separate conductors for data and power, the designs for the optical cables had fibre for the data and separate copper conductors for power. The power issue is a non-issue.
________________

There's so much hype for a connector that has no devices to connect to it, and just a couple of probably quite expensive devices announced for "sometime this year".

Too bad that the magsafe power + optical LightPeak connector didn't show up. That would have let Apple finally make a docking station for the MacBooks that was simple and pretty.

 

[firestarter]

So, the problem is that the optical tranceivers are too expensive for the motherboard - so the solution it to buy one or two optical tranceivers with every cable?

Optical is for the high end, and for long distance use. What benefit do you think optical will have for cable runs < 3m?

How expensive is too expensive? A $5 part that's not strictly needed is too expensive for a motherboard - yet $10 on a 30m cable isn't a big deal.

So in a few years the mini-display port version will be obsolete?

Not if the connection is electrical at either end (MDP) and the optical fibre just links the transceivers in the plugs.

From the Intel documentation: "Thunderbolt cables may be electrical or optical; both use the same Thunderbolt connector."

The cables already have separate conductors for data and power, the designs for the optical cables had fibre for the data and separate copper conductors for power. The power issue is a non-issue.

Incorrect. "A purely optical cable won't deliver electrical power."

There's so much hype for a connector that has no devices to connect to it, and just a couple of probably quite expensive devices announced for "sometime this year".

Too bad that the magsafe power + optical LightPeak connector didn't show up. That would have let Apple finally make a docking station for the MacBooks that was simple and pretty.

Seriously, what's the biggie about optical? Apart from geek-cred and extra cable length (do you really need > 3m?) it offers very little.

Embedding this in the magsafe power connector would have ensured that noone else in the industry ever used it - it would be stillborn. Apple doesn't licence magsafe to anyone.

 

[AidenShaw]

Optical is for the high end, and for long distance use. What benefit do you think optical will have for cable runs < 3m?

More than 10 Gbps, for starters...

How expensive is too expensive? A $5 part that's not strictly needed is too expensive for a motherboard - yet $10 on a 30m cable isn't a big deal.

Adding $10 raw parts cost to a cable will be much more than $10 on the street.

Incorrect. "A purely optical cable won't deliver electrical power."

Of course. That's why you'd have, like I said, a hybrid cable with both optical and copper components.

Seriously, what's the biggie about optical? Apart from geek-cred and extra cable length (do you really need > 3m?) it offers very little.

3m is pretty short - yes, I need more. The 2m max for eSATA is a big headache in my home office.

Embedding this in the magsafe power connector would have ensured that noone else in the industry ever used it - it would be stillborn].

And embedding it with DisplayPort might be just as bad. Cha-ching for all the expensive dongles needed to connect Mini-DisplayPort to most of the monitors on the planet.

And of course, there would be non-magsafe standard connectors as well - for the rest of us. (I do a lot with fibre optics - and the number of gender-changing fibre cables is scary.) It would be a nice way to connect an Apple laptop to a monitor as a breakout box. Picture an Imac without a motherboard - just display, disks, ports (including eSATA and a non-magsafe Thunderbolt daisy port) - one click and it's all connected.
________

One early adopters' worry that I'd have with Thunderbolt is that it's a PCIe to PCIe bridge - therefore hot-plugging non-DisplayPort Thunderbolt is the same as hot-plugging PCIe cards. There will probably be some teething pains to get the OSX to recognize PCIe cards dynamically appearing and disappearing. (Windows has supported hot-plug PCI for a long time.)

But, as I said, there's a whole lot of hype about something that nobody has ever used in the wild.

 

[i make movies]

Show me one monitor sold at any consumer store (other than Apple) that supports display port, let alone mini-display port.

Here's 68 monitors that support display port.

http://reviews.cnet.com/displayport-displays/

Edit to add graphics cards

Here's 259 graphics cards that output display port.

http://reviews.cnet.com/graphics-cards/?filter=502674_122318_&tag=mncol

Here's 3 graphics cards that output Mini Display Port

http://reviews.cnet.com/graphics-cards/?filter=502674_19579093_&tag=mncol

 

[yukio]

... and since Dell does not sell their mid/high range at consumer stores, Magnus wins this one.

Well, I don't know where Magnus is, so we will have to forego the geek shopping duel for now. ;-)

But Microcenter and various Amazon resellers carry the Ultrasharp displays, in addition to Dell themselves. And the Sammy & HPs are probably available in more retail outlets than Apple & Dell combined.

The point I was trying to make was that you can conceivably add a USB3 hub inline - any number of types of hubs in fact - to a Thunderbolt configuration, but you can't (as of now) do the opposite.

 

[toke lahti]

So, the problem is that the optical tranceivers are too expensive for the motherboard - and the solution is to buy one or two optical tranceivers with every cable?

Yes,
you need transceiver at the both ends of every optical cable anyway.
So why not put them in cable side of the end?
That wat you can choose with every port/device that if you need only short cable, you can use copper and if you need long cable, you'll get optical cable.
No transceivers wasted in any port.
I think it is great idea that you don't have to have different ports for copper & optical.
Same thing than with fibrechannel.

 

[k995]

Actually. Dell (the newer XPS laptops), HP (the newer ENVY laptops), and Toshiba (random various models) have started replacing VGA with Mini DisplayPort on their laptops. I'm pretty sure once Dell and HP have MDP on their entire lineup, they're likely to include DP on their monitors (in Dell's case, trickling it down from the U-series to the other lines). ThunderBolt gives PC manufactuers more of a reason to use Mini DisplayPort over legacy connectors because of the now dual-purpose nature of the connector, which leads to more simplicity.

Looking at the local pricewatch, out of 950 monitors, 75 support displayport. Thats not 10%, and they are mostly new and more expesive .

Most people 90-95% will not have a displayport capable monitor.

TV's is even worse , 3 out of 800 . (and yes I have my mac hooked up to a TV)


Nobody besides apple uses Thunderbolt now, and its going to remain a while before this gets any serious adoption. Thats not a benefit thats a downside, you will have to have adapters for about anything if you want to use this, negating any advantage.

 

[marksman]

You realize it has been out for like 2 days now right?

This is just going to help pick up the adoption of display port in devices... That is pretty obvious.

How many tvs and monitors connect with USB3?

 

[takao]

This is just going to help pick up the adoption of display port in devices... That is pretty obvious.

and for every displayport device connected to thunderbolt apple sells a 20 euro adapter which cost 1 euro to produce

this connector adapter madness on macs is getting a little bit out of hand, isn't it ? i somehow fear this is becoming the same cliché as buying a usb hub

 

[huntson]

I know it's Thunderbolt lol Just making fun of the name. and, Yes, Thunderbolt is just a re-branding of Lightpeak. If you are trying to say that Thunderbolt is the actual port (and not the tech) then you are wrong. Intel's lightpeak includes the port that is used to connect to it.

Sorry I missed the joke and I am not trying to say that Thunderbolt is just the port. I am saying that the hybrid of Lightpeak and Display data is thunderbolt and therefore Apple's idea.

 

[huntson]

Optical is for the high end, and for long distance use. What benefit do you think optical will have for cable runs < 3m?

How expensive is too expensive? A $5 part that's not strictly needed is too expensive for a motherboard - yet $10 on a 30m cable isn't a big deal.



Not if the connection is electrical at either end (MDP) and the optical fibre just links the transceivers in the plugs.

From the Intel documentation: "Thunderbolt cables may be electrical or optical; both use the same Thunderbolt connector."



Incorrect. "A purely optical cable won't deliver electrical power."



Seriously, what's the biggie about optical? Apart from geek-cred and extra cable length (do you really need > 3m?) it offers very little.

Embedding this in the magsafe power connector would have ensured that noone else in the industry ever used it - it would be stillborn. Apple doesn't licence magsafe to anyone.

You could imagine professional applications such as a replacement for Fibre being a good use for >3m cables.

 

[Digital Skunk]

One early adopters' worry that I'd have with Thunderbolt is that it's a PCIe to PCIe bridge - therefore hot-plugging non-DisplayPort Thunderbolt is the same as hot-plugging PCIe cards. There will probably be some teething pains to get the OSX to recognize PCIe cards dynamically appearing and disappearing. (Windows has supported hot-plug PCI for a long time.)

But, as I said, there's a whole lot of hype about something that nobody has ever used in the wild.

There's something that I haven't considered. I know FW800 and USB have a tendency to disconnect from a laptop while on the move. There are times I cut in a moving vehicle (nothing special, an RV or a car) and a good bump will send the portable drive and cable flying out of the machine.

Now, when that happens I get the usual message, I plug the cable back in, reset FCP's scratch and keep it moving.

If this happens with a PCIe device on a Mac the machine will undoubtedly kernal panic and I'll have to restart the computer and loose work . . . not good.

Sorry I missed the joke and I am not trying to say that Thunderbolt is just the port. I am saying that the hybrid of Lightpeak and Display data is thunderbolt and therefore Apple's idea.

LightPeak was always intended to send data, power, and video through the same cable. It was always Intel's intention to provide that tech, all Apple did was sign off on it and send funding Intel's way.

 

[k995]

You realize it has been out for like 2 days now right?

This is just going to help pick up the adoption of display port in devices... That is pretty obvious.

How many tvs and monitors connect with USB3?

Hdmi you mean , and according to intel apple has 6 to 12 months lead, no i dont see this having much effect . It wil be years before this is a benefit.

 

[marksman]

Hdmi you mean , and according to intel apple has 6 to 12 months lead, no i dont see this having much effect . It wil be years before this is a benefit.

No I don't mean HDMI, what does HDMI have to do with comparing ThunderBolt with USB3?

 

[toke lahti]

Looking at the local pricewatch, out of 950 monitors, 75 support displayport. Thats not 10%, and they are mostly new and more expesive.

Just like Macs in generally?

 

[Denarius]

No I don't mean HDMI, what does HDMI have to do with comparing ThunderBolt with USB3?

Personally, I think the possibilities that this technology open up for high-bandwidth consumers are huge. I think Apple may have made a mistake for chasing initial exclusivity. The only affect that will have is a slower adoption rate for Thunderbolt. Their focus here should be the licensing revenue from displayports!

Edit: Actually I can see that for a brand like Apple the caché of having it first might be worth a small stunting of the adoption rate.

 

[Denarius]

LightPeak was always intended to send data, power, and video through the same cable. It was always Intel's intention to provide that tech, all Apple did was sign off on it and send funding Intel's way.

You've forgotten licensing the displayport connector.

 

[AidenShaw]

You've forgotten licensing the displayport connector.

Are you sure about that?

Apple had initially offered the standard on its own as a no-fee license in order to encourage adoption,

https://www.macrumors.com/2009/11/10/vesa-approves-apples-mini-displayport-standard/

It would be inconsistent for Apple to complain about "bag-of-hurt" licensing fees, and then to encumber mDP with an Apple tax.

 

[toke lahti]

LightPeak was always intended to send data, power, and video through the same cable.

Just like usb3?

 

[Denarius]

Are you sure about that?



It would be inconsistent for Apple to complain about "bag-of-hurt" licensing fees, and then to encumber mDP with an Apple tax.

Absolutely positive. The Mini DisplayPort is an Apple patent. If anyone wishes to use it then they must obtain permission from Apple through a licensing agreement. If Apple chooses not to charge a fee for licensing for strategic purposes then that's another matter.

 

[AidenShaw]

Absolutely positive. The Mini DisplayPort is an Apple patent. If anyone wishes to use it then they must obtain permission from Apple through a licensing agreement. If Apple chooses not to charge a fee for licensing for strategic purposes then that's another matter.

It's also a VESA standard, so it's possible that Apple relinquished rights when submitting it for standards approval.

VESA says:

Patents

VESA draws attention to the fact that it is claimed that compliance with this Standard may involve the use of a patent or other intellectual property right (collectively, “IPR”). VESA takes no position concerning the evidence, validity, and scope of this IPR.

The following holders of this IPR have assured VESA that they are willing to license the IPR on RAND terms. The statement of the holder of this IPR is registered with VESA.

Holder Name Contact Information
Apple, Inc Colin Whitby-Strevens (colinws@apple.com)

Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this VESA Standard may be the subject of IPR other than those identified above. VESA shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such IPR, and has made no inquiry into the possible existence of any such IPR.

 

[Denarius]

It's also a VESA standard, so it's possible that Apple relinquished rights when submitting it for standards approval.

VESA says:

The answers in the quote you posted. Apple declared that they would license the technology on reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms for it to be included in the standard. RAND doesn't negate licensing fees, it ensures they are reasonable.

 

[Denarius]

I think the success or failure of Thunderbolt will depend on how open Intel and Apple are going to be with their respective patents. If the main game is widespread adoption then they're going need to license it to people like AMD, nVidia etc. to get the adoption in the peripheral sector. If they're going to try to hold onto it as an Intel/Apple USP, then I suspect that it will lose out to USB 3 in the long run in spite of TB's clear technical superiority.

 

[diamond.g]

I think the success or failure of Thunderbolt will depend on how open Intel and Apple are going to be with their respective patents. If the main game is widespread adoption then they're going need to license it to people like AMD, nVidia etc. to get the adoption in the peripheral sector. If they're going to try to hold onto it as an Intel/Apple USP, then I suspect that it will lose out to USB 3 in the long run in spite of TB's clear technical superiority.

Wasn't the failure of FireWire more on the expensiveness of the controller chip that needed to be in each device? I seem to recall that being one of the excuses...

 

[Denarius]

Wasn't the failure of FireWire more on the expensiveness of the controller chip that needed to be in each device? I seem to recall that being one of the excuses...

I wouldn't say that Firewire failed as such. It didn't penetrate the consumer market so much, but it did pretty well in professional audio and video environments. Firewire was all but synonymous with DV and there's a wealth of firewire audio cards/mixers out in the wild.

You're right though, cost will count for a lot. If the presence of TB adds much ot the price of a peripheral then it's not going to take over from something where USB will do.

Edit: That said, Thunderbolt has convinced me to start saving for my computer upgrade. Thunderbolt has just put the pro back in MacBook pro. Hell, if they're not careful it's going to put the pro into Mac Mini for a lot of AV professionals as well!