And also timing, which has been a problem for USB for things like video. The Pros stayed with FW, whereas on the consumer level, the general approach being used by USB3 has been the "bigger hammer" bandwidth paradigm where the assumption was that the extra bandwidth will prevent time-sensitive data from arriving too late to screw things up. Works adequately on short clips.
....
Parties who need something better than USB3's limitations ... such as time-sensitive transfers that don't rely on "luck" (bandwidth overkill assumptions
USB 3.0's SuperSpeed is far more than just "faster USB 2.0". It is a different, not backward compatible protocol stack run on a different set of wires. USB 2.0 and USB 3.0 have isochronous mechanism. USB 3.0's aren't bandwidth starve, nor have to deal with bonehead hacks implemented on the 1.1 and 2.0 wires.
The USB 3.0 version of Intensity doesn't work by "luck"....
http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/intensity/
It does the practically the identical workload the PCI-e and TB versions do.
--------
On would think that after the previous battles that facts would be a little easier to come by.
You'd think....
Fact: TB supports channel syncing, and isochronous timing protocols like FW and data channels are inherently low latency (8ns), features that would be desirable for video and audio production; an inherent advantage over USB 3.0.
Given that USB 3.0 also supports isochronous transfers this seems a rather dubious "fact". The latencies don't exactly match, but that is not a issue over a wide range of context where this it is used ( audio , most video, etc. )
Fact: TB is inherently multiprotocol.
Not. TB devices largely only work with other TB devices. (the corner case of putting a Display Port device at the end of a chain is huge stretch to a multiprotocol claim). The data
Fact: Apple's current TB implementation will be compatible with future optical implementations; the transceivers will be imbedded in the cable. Apple's current implementation will be backwards compatible with future TB implementations.
On first yes; at least on the immediately future optical implementations. Long term; somewhat doubtful. On the second, no. future TB implementations will be backwards compatible with Apple's current one. Not the other way around. So when 100Gbps TB comes around the current cable/transciever pairs may or may not work.
The only speculation would be which future Ivy Bridge implementations on the various Mac's and TB displays will support both TB and USB 3.0 connectors?
I would guess all.
There is a not so small chance Apple punt on USB 3.0 for one more cycle. The Ivy Bridge chips are pin compatible with the Sandy Bridge. They could do a lame "processor only" upgrade that would allow them to trot out the same ports as last year with minimal R&D effort ( and higher margins.). That would also allow them to "kick the can down the road" on updated xHCI USB drivers until Mac OS 10.8 also. ( If Apple has been working on the associated software stack it has been a stealthy effort. )
Apple should drop USB 3.0 and TB on next models. Should do USB 3.0 (more so than TB) on the upcoming Mac Pro. However, they probably should have done a couple of things in last year or so that they didn't.
I would also speculate that TB will ultimately be the Mac Pro's assassin, though I hope that is far down the road.
No the Mac Pro's assassin will be the Mac Pro's userbase and their working sets. If user base buys other stuff then it will die off. Folks using 3 (in some cases 2 if x16 and x8 card) PCI-e cards aren't going to find TB creditable. Even less so when the new Mac Pro's drop with PCI-e v3.0 and TB is still stuck on v2.0.