Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'iPod' started by Ryan Of Seattle, Mar 7, 2011.
I dont know but I Think it would be cool if they gave it a thunderbolt connection along with usb.
Why would they give it both? Eventually Thunderbolt will replace USB. If for some reason the iPhone 5 gets TB, (unlikely because the iPad 2 didnt get it) I suppose there is a chance the iPod Touch 5 could get in in the summer.
Why? I would venture to guess that the memory used in iOS devices is slower than USB2.0 and the only computers out on the market currently are Apple's. Apple is not going to use Thunderbolt on their devices until it is widely adopted (or at least more available than on less than 10% of the market. Even firewire was found on more than 10% of the market when the first ipods came out).
Look at iPad. It can do 1080p from dock connector.
And unless mobile storage require Thunderbolt, it's not happening.
So no, not for years.
I would love it..
Maybe in 5 years, for the moment USB2.0 is the standard.
Intel, (the REAL developer), said that Thunderbolt is never going to replace USB. It is meant as a high-speed alternative for certain situations. It is suposed to share ubiquity with USB.
But in 4-5 years, we will need a thunderbolt-to-USB adapter for our iPods if we don't have thunderbolt.
Until TB reaches critical mass, no way. I see little benefit it for iDevices. Other than your initial sync, subsequent ones are generally not data intensive.
No way. They won't use thunderbolt for the same reason they stopped using Firewire- every computer has USB.
Unless I'm missing the point, would you want a faster transfer speed not matter what the storage capacity is?
The timing just seem to be equivalent to have a faster transfer speed for a larger storage capacity size.
ipods will be phazed out in 3-5 years.. until then they stay USB. No need for TB on ipods. If apple cared about speed they would've stuck to FW or used esata for ipods. no deal.
Thunderbolt is by far too new to start speculating what it will actually be used for, though I do suspect it will used for high-end video, high speed storage, networking and peripherals with the need for ultra wide high speed bus (thinking 4K here).
Still it's new, very new technology it could be a winner like USB or loose out miserably like VSA-100.
It might already . . .
Who's to say it doesn't already? --at least starting with the iPad 2. People are quick to forget how much the 30 pin dock connector has changed over the years. Changed? Yes. It used to only work with FireWire. Then USB but charging over FireWire and now ONLY with USB and no FireWire support.
iPad2 --> 1st 'i' Device--no, ANY device--to use 10W USB charger
ThunderBolt (copper) --> 10W of power
Thunderbolt is new FireWire so why would the 30 pin dock connector evolve again to support both? Apple is waiting until the new line up of iPod and computers at the end of the summer to announce it.
USB is pretty well established, if thunderbolt were to take over it would be a long time from now.
That being said I think they'll stick to USB, its not like the iPods storage performance specs exceed USB2's performance, so it would literally be pointless.
Since iPods are primarily used for music, the Thunderbolt connection is ridiculous overkill.
For example, after I bought through the iTunes Store the album Hooked-On Classics Collection, I was able to copy essentially the three-disc album to my 4G iPod touch about a minute through a USB 2.0 connection. As such, this demonstrates you really don't need anything much faster.
I think it has as much to do with power and future planning as it does with speed. I don't think Apple will go strictly TB in the near future--they've always had a 'slower' peripheral bus and a 'faster' bus, even back to ADB&SCSI--and those products that didn't have always had limited appeal.
So I think we'll see TB sycing as an option at some point in the near future, though it may never become mandatory before all these gadgets start charging and sync'ing wirelessly.
Thunderbolt replaced the 30-pin, not USB
Dudes -- Thunderbolt doesn't replace USB, it replaced the 30-pin connector.
The 30-pin connector is hugely misunderstood. It's basically a single connector that contains all the ports a computer would normally have (except ethernet, which doesn't make sense on a mobile device) -- it contains USB, Firewire, audio in, audio out, composite analog video out, component video out, digital video out, and power. Rather than having 9 ports on an iPod/iPad (there isn't even enough room for them all) they have a single port, the 30-pin, and a set of breakout cables for audio, video, USB, etc. Saves cost, too -- having all those ports individually would add a surprising amount of cost to devices.
Thunderbolt does the same thing -- USB, Firewire, audio, video protocols and more, plus power, can all run on the Thunderbolt wire. My guess is that at some point Apple replaces the 30-pin connector on iPads and iPods with Thunderbolt and instead of including a 30-pin to USB cable it supplies a Thunderbolt to USB cable.
I suspect that Thunderbolt in iP(o|a)ds is still quite a ways off - check out the iFixit teardown for more details. The controller alone is bigger than the entire A5 processor, and requires 4x PCIe lanes (not available on many SoCs) plus a likely power draw of 2-3W. Not a huge deal for a laptop with a 35W+ processor, but a *big* deal for a tablet...
All iPods? I don't see that happening in 5 years at all.
No, it isnt a connector standard at all. It is a complete protocol standard with its own controller running at 10Gbps. See the post below yours. Besides the logistical challenge that it will be a long while before any volume of devices has thunderbolt (you do realize that the *vast* majority of i devices go to PC owners right? Mac desktop/notebooks have very low marketshare), there is the fact that an interface between USB and thunderbolt would be a very complex thing - not a simple cable - people claiming "oh yeah just a cable", are skimming articles they don't understand and drawing ridiculous conclusions.
Thunderbolt is essentially external PCI-E. So sure, any device that could conceivably interface with PCI-E can interface with TB. But that means building some sort of breakout box. This is why the new MBPs still have a flotilla of ports. It isnt a mystery. Anyone who actually understands the technology of these parts will understand this.
As for i devices, there is no way an i device can move 10Gbps of data. The flash isn't fast enough, the processors aren't fast enough.
Apple should have gone to USB3 as an interim step *in addition* to TB, then rev'd the i devices to USB3 and started using faster flash. It's ridiculous they didn't - pure cost savings move (which incidentally is *not* passed on to the consumer in the form of lower prices)
I don't understand all the naysayers in here. The first iPod had FireWire and it made syncing incredibly fast. Apple switched to USB and started gaining market share (pc users). Apple has to keep USB on the iPods but I wouldn't be surprised to see a tb port appear next to the 30 pin connector - apple wants to spread this technology as far and as fast as possible. Pumping out millions of devices with it will make all pc makers put them on their computers.
The original iPad also used a 10W USB charger.
When connected to a 'standard' 5W USB port, they would charge (very slowly) only if the screen was off.
Ummm, original firewire was 400mbps compared to USB 2.0 at 480mbps. Further, the hard drive and/or Flash memory used in iPods also is a bottle neck that everyone seems to forget about. Just because the interface has tons of bandwidth, doesn't mean you can write to the device any faster.
Case in point, Today's mechanical hard drives are now coming out with SATA3 connectors, but they still can't saturate a SATA2. That means that the data isn't going to move any faster than it did on SATA2.
Technically, the sustained transfer rate of FW400 is much greater than USB 2.0.