So is it safe to say Thunderbolt has been ... Underwhelming thus far?

[squeakr]

I would like to see it become a dock, like with the TB Display, where I could let the internet connection, USBs, FW800, and monitor connection all be on one remote box and then when I dock, it would only be a quick single connection instead of my several steps now (yes I am lazy).

 

[wrinkster22]

I would like to see it become a dock, like with the TB Display, where I could let the internet connection, USBs, FW800, and monitor connection all be on one remote box and then when I dock, it would only be a quick single connection instead of my several steps now (yes I am lazy).

That is actually exactly what I want to. Except it would also need gigabit ethernet.
I would pay ~200 for the apple thunderbolt display w/o the actual screen.

 

[squeakr]

I had internet in my list (and yes I want gig) and the TB display has it as well (gig as well).

 

[Exhale]

I think the TB display daisy chaining has been implemented well.

The thing is though that daisy chaining is not a Thunderbolt implementation.

Its a Displayport one. Modern Displayport units have the very same capability, and its that implementation Thunderbolt takes advantage of. And that feature has been supported by AMD graphics card since February, the same time the first Thunderbolt capable machine was released.

 

[wikus]

I have a feeling thunderbolt is going to end up exactly like firewire; niche product mainly for apple users.

USB 3.0 has gained too much momentum for thunderbolt to catch up at this point. and in all honesty, USB 3.0 is plenty fast for file transfers.

 

[palpatine]

I have a feeling thunderbolt is going to end up exactly like firewire; niche product mainly for apple users.

USB 3.0 has gained too much momentum for thunderbolt to catch up at this point. and in all honesty, USB 3.0 is plenty fast for file transfers.

3.0 is terribly slow, especially when you are moving around terabytes of info. it isn't a lack of interest or availability. unlike firewire, thunderbolt is something available independent of apple.

the problem is cost. until it is made available on more devices (pcs), i think the cost will remain high, and there will be few users. there isn't much we can do about that but wait.

 

[jhead95]

The advantages of Thunderbolt are very compelling. It'll happen. It's happening.

I'm struggling to see how 'it's happening' lol. I would love to be using the technology, especially for data transfer/storage, but time and time again find myself falling back to other mediums (USB). Maybe I'm just not looking hard enough?

 

[shortcut3d]

3.0 is terribly slow, especially when you are moving around terabytes of info. it isn't a lack of interest or availability. unlike firewire, thunderbolt is something available independent of apple.

the problem is cost. until it is made available on more devices (pcs), i think the cost will remain high, and there will be few users. there isn't much we can do about that but wait.

+1

I copied 24GB of video from my internal 240GB OCZ Vertex 3 MAX IOPs to my LaCie Thunderbolt Little Big Disk at 400 MB/s. The copy speed never fluctuated. This LaCie Thunderbolt Little Big Disk was modified with two 240GB OCZ Vertex 3 SSDs in RAID 0.

 

[thundersteele]

Very few people need external storage that is able to transfer data at 400 MB/s. But it's nice to know that it's possible.

I think the bigger market for Thunderbolt is docks. Macbook Airs and Ultrabooks are becoming more and more popular. I'm looking forward to non Apple Thunderbolt displays, with built-in HDD storage and optional, built in GPU. On the MBP, there is less need for such an extension. But I can now imagine that my next laptop (in 2-3 years) might be an Air (or some Ultrabook, if Apple screws up OSX at some point).

 

[Freyqq]

I mean, I'm really sick of seeing Apple adopt new standards/technology and not dedicate themselves to it.

Sure, we've got the Thunderbolt Display ... But I really doubt anyone is going to pay $1,000 for a docking station (It effectively is just a docking station if you already have a monitor, and most people already do).

Why can't Apple support the technology instead of just leaving it to 3rd party people to do what they please with it.

Where are the external graphics cards? portable hard drives that are affordable? networking chipsets?

It's got so much potential yet no one is doing anything with it. Shame on Intel too, it's their tech, least they could do is make it a networking platform.

wait at least until ivy bridge comes out and PCs get it. Then there will be more financial incentive for companies to make thunderbolt devices.

 

[phyrexia]

Very few people need external storage that is able to transfer data at 400 MB/s. But it's nice to know that it's possible.

What does that even mean?

You're right, 640K ought to be enough for anybody.

 

[thundersteele]

What does that even mean?

You're right, 640K ought to be enough for anybody.

I should have said "currently need."

It's not easy to provide such fast storage. You would need an external SATA III SSD or a raid with 4 HDDs, or better. Such hardware currently starts around $1000. I doubt that even 0.1% of all MBP users currently own such a setup. It's a very small market.

There wouldn't be much benefit from offering a 7200 rpm thunderbolt HDD. It wouldn't be much faster than a Firewire HDD, but much more expensive (the cable is $50 already).

I think there is a bigger market for good docking stations for Ultrabooks and Airs. Here Thunderbolt offers possibilities that USB 3.0 and display ports don't offer. So this is where I currently see more potential for _consumer_ thunderbolt devices.

 

[phyrexia]

I should have said "currently need."

It's not easy to provide such fast storage. You would need an external SATA III SSD or a raid with 4 HDDs, or better. Such hardware currently starts around $1000. I doubt that even 0.1% of all MBP users currently own such a setup. It's a very small market.

There wouldn't be much benefit from offering a 7200 rpm thunderbolt HDD. It wouldn't be much faster than a Firewire HDD, but much more expensive (the cable is $50 already).

I think there is a bigger market for good docking stations for Ultrabooks and Airs. Here Thunderbolt offers possibilities that USB 3.0 and display ports don't offer. So this is where I currently see more potential for _consumer_ thunderbolt devices.

Yeah, I'm just giving you a hard time. You see my point, though. Do I need 5ghz 450mbps wireless N? Do I need a gigabit home network? Probably not at this point, but it sure is nice.

You are right, though, firewire is good enough for a lot of uses.

I wonder if any ThunderBolt audio interfaces will become available? FireWire appears to be good for up to 16 simultaneous channels of audio at least. I could see a TB-enabled professional level mixing console with 48 or 64 simultaneous channels of audio output. But again this is not 'consumer grade'.

 

[thundersteele]

Yeah, I'm just giving you a hard time.

 

[Wattser93]

Except for most people its $1000 for a display, when many people would be happy with some $300 competitor display. Yeah, the thunderbolt display also serves as a fancy port, but jesus, $1000!

I know what you mean about that. The TB daisy chaining for displays is nice, but not $1000 nice.

I think that if Apple did some 23" 1920x1080 TB displays for daisy chaining, and priced them at about $250, it would be more realistic.

I think that TB has great potential, but I'd rather have 2 MDP ports for doing dual external monitors than having a TB port that does daisy chaining with only Apple's overpriced monitors.

 

[phyrexia]

I know what you mean about that. The TB daisy chaining for displays is nice, but not $1000 nice.

I think that if Apple did some 23" 1920x1080 TB displays for daisy chaining, and priced them at about $250, it would be more realistic.

I think that TB has great potential, but I'd rather have 2 MDP ports for doing dual external monitors than having a TB port that does daisy chaining with only Apple's overpriced monitors.

The only comparable display to the ThunderBolt display that I can think of offhand is Dell's 27" display, which is $899 and doesn't have USB ports, Gigabit Ethernet, a camera, etc.

$1000 is still expensive for a display, but I don't know how overpriced it is compared to the rest of the market.

edit: in fact, there are much more expensive 27" monitors than the TBD. NEC has a $1200 model with a USB hub. EIZO has a $1400 model with USB hub.

 

[Wattser93]

The only comparable display to the ThunderBolt display that I can think of offhand is Dell's 27" display, which is $899 and doesn't have USB ports, Gigabit Ethernet, a camera, etc.

$1000 is still expensive for a display, but I don't know how overpriced it is compared to the rest of the market.

edit: in fact, there are much more expensive 27" monitors than the TBD. NEC has a $1200 model with a USB hub. EIZO has a $1400 model with USB hub.

I don't have a desire for a 27" 2560x1440 display, I'm much rather have two 23" 1920x1080 displays, for half of the price of a 27" display. I like tiling my displays, and find tiling 4 columns of apps across 2 displays better than tiling 4 apps in the 4 corners of a larger display.

 

[wikus]

3.0 is terribly slow, especially when you are moving around terabytes of info. it isn't a lack of interest or availability. unlike firewire, thunderbolt is something available independent of apple.

the problem is cost. until it is made available on more devices (pcs), i think the cost will remain high, and there will be few users. there isn't much we can do about that but wait.

USB 3.0 is 750mb/s. Thats faster than any current SSD drive can handle.

Slow? Clearly not.

----------

+1

I copied 24GB of video from my internal 240GB OCZ Vertex 3 MAX IOPs to my LaCie Thunderbolt Little Big Disk at 400 MB/s. The copy speed never fluctuated. This LaCie Thunderbolt Little Big Disk was modified with two 240GB OCZ Vertex 3 SSDs in RAID 0.

You would have been able to hit that 400mb/s speed just as easily with USB 3.0. Though talking about your success with Thunderbolt does not mean USB 3.0 is slow. You haven't shown it to be slow.

 

[Wattser93]

FW800 is faster than USB2.0, that doesn't mean it is better. Given the choice between FW800 and USB2.0, I'd choose USB2.0 because of ubiquity.

TB needs some market support, without that, it has no value to me. No sense in having a port that doesn't serve a purpose.

 

[OllyW]

I wonder if any ThunderBolt audio interfaces will become available? FireWire appears to be good for up to 16 simultaneous channels of audio at least. I could see a TB-enabled professional level mixing console with 48 or 64 simultaneous channels of audio output. But again this is not 'consumer grade'.

The Universal Audio Apollo interface with Thunderbolt Option Card available from "Summer 2012" has just been announced at NAMM 2012.

You were right as it's not 'consumer grade' and prices will start at $2,000 (not including the option card).

http://www.uaudio.com/blog/apollo-faq

 

[maflynn]

TB needs some market support, without that, it has no value to me. No sense in having a port that doesn't serve a purpose.

If TB is to catch on, then other manufacturers have to embrace the technology. One thing in their favor is the fact this an Intel technology and apple isn't charging or trying to charge license fees. I read somewhere at one point they tried that with FireWire and that slowed the adoption of that on computers.

 

[dusk007]

License fees for firewire have been a bad idea but I think it just added to the other problems. It was only just a little better than USB 2.0 but the controller simply to costly.

Thunderbolt has the same problem. It doesn't matter how many adopt it those controllers are still rather huge and they need to shrink them a lot before they can be manufactured to be reach prices anywhere near what is necessary for broad adoption.
As I understand it optical it would have been even more expensive and would have taken maybe 4 years after release before it became cheap enough. So they went copper to get something that can be useful sooner, but it still is too expensive.
A USB controller is simple, small and really cheap. They will end up in just about anything. Thunderbolt won't because it is the opposite.
2012 there will be a few more Thunderbolt devices but they will still be very expensive and few people actually buy or use them. After this year you might still say it is underwhelming. 2013 is the earlist I think it might pick up but I guess it won't be a widely used technology for at least another 2 years (ergo 2014) if it ever will be.

It doesn't stand a chance against USB 3.0. USB will go its way regardless. If Thunderbolt will grow to a true new standard before it is replaced by a 2nd gen optical is the question or will it stay like FW a niche product only used by a select view.
I think it won't be more than FW until there is a next generation that is optical, fast and cheaper. The current version will probably never go truly mainstream. The next gen will.