Thunderbolt Port on next Airport Extreme?

[PeckhamBog]

With the impressive through put of the new Thunderbolt I/O port, is it likely to be 'ported' onto the next generation Airport Extreme?

That would then allow a fast Thunderbolt equipped hard drive to be shared over the network for storage and back ups.

Does Thunderbolt need a computer-like motherboard and processor to implement [accommodate] it, or will it fit in an Airport Extreme?

 

[miles01110]

Why bother? 802.11n only supports theoretical speeds up to around 300 Mbps, depending on who you ask. In practice you get much, much less. Same reasoning applies to the wired side- unless your entire network is supporting gigabit ethernet it's pointless.

 

[WallpaperPerson]

Why bother? 802.11n only supports theoretical speeds up to around 300 Mbps, depending on who you ask. In practice you get much, much less. Same reasoning applies to the wired side- unless your entire network is supporting gigabit ethernet it's pointless.

It's not pointless because
A. Your gigabit ethernet devices could use it (I know you mentioned that)

B. Your WiFi devices could use your Thunderbolt devices even if not at full speed. I mean, what if you had a Thunderbolt (and not a usb device) you wanted to share with your whole network, like a printer or external hard drive? If they added Thunderbolt, you could do that.

 

[ActionableMango]

One of the big points about LightPeak is to replace all other connection types. So theoretically the next Airport extreme could actually have Thunderbolt ports replacing some of the Ethernet jacks too, for a faster network connection.

 

[WallpaperPerson]

One of the big points about LightPeak is to replace all other connection types. So theoretically the next Airport extreme could actually have Thunderbolt ports replacing some of the Ethernet jacks too, for a faster network connection.

Maybe but I don't know - it depends how long it can be extended before latency ensues.

 

[miles01110]

B. Your WiFi devices could use your Thunderbolt devices even if not at full speed. I mean, what if you had a Thunderbolt (and not a usb device) you wanted to share with your whole network, like a printer or external hard drive? If they added Thunderbolt, you could do that.

They could have done that with Firewire or eSata also. I don't know why you'd change a moderately successful product that uses an open standard with no licensing fees in favor of a new connector that offers no competitive or technical advantage that you also need to pay licensing fees to produce.

 

[WallpaperPerson]

They could have done that with Firewire or eSata also. I don't know why you'd change a moderately successful product that uses an open standard with no licensing fees in favor of a new connector that offers no competitive or technical advantage that you also need to pay licensing fees to produce.

Yes but there will be different devices for this.

 

[belvdr]

Yes but there will be different devices for this.

What devices would require this new speed?

I agree with miles. I'm not sure why (even with new devices) you'd need to go this direction. USB is much more prominent and cheaper for add on devices.

Even if you had 25 gigabit connected devices, you are likely going to be limited by the device, not the connection.

 

[miles01110]

It might make sense to change the AEBS once the RJ-45 jack loses predominance as the LAN connector of choice. However, people have been predicting fiber to the desk for almost a decade now... I'm not holding my breath.

 

[hayesk]

The CPU in an AEBS isn't even fast enough to handle it's USB port properly, let alone Thunderbolt. Besides, gigabit Ethernet is the fastest port on it, it's not really necessary.

 

[WallpaperPerson]

What devices would require this new speed?

I agree with miles. I'm not sure why (even with new devices) you'd need to go this direction. USB is much more prominent and cheaper for add on devices.

Even if you had 25 gigabit connected devices, you are likely going to be limited by the device, not the connection.

Maybe. Consider this. What if you could connect a display using the Thunderbolt port(via the DisplayPort functionally of it) and use it with network devices? Like?

 

[belvdr]

Maybe. Consider this. What if you could connect a display using the Thunderbolt port(via the DisplayPort functionally of it) and use it with network devices? Like?

What would it display? Frankly, if it were possible, why would you want to output your display to your wireless AP? Most people don't have them sitting right next to their machine.

 

[miles01110]

Maybe. Consider this. What if you could connect a display using the Thunderbolt port(via the DisplayPort functionally of it) and use it with network devices? Like?

You can do that already with ethernet. It's called Remote Desktop.

Edit: Oh, I get it... you want to connect a standalone monitor in a remote location. I'm clear on the setup now (if that's correct), but not the purpose. What on earth would the purpose of a remote monitor be that would necessitate using this technology?

 

[belvdr]

You can do that already with ethernet. It's called Remote Desktop.

Well, that's between machines. I think he was thinking of connecting the display directly to the AEBS, which doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

[SingaporeStu]

You can do that already with ethernet. It's called Remote Desktop.

Edit: Oh, I get it... you want to connect a standalone monitor in a remote location. I'm clear on the setup now (if that's correct), but not the purpose. What on earth would the purpose of a remote monitor be that would necessitate using this technology?

Well, that's between machines. I think he was thinking of connecting the display directly to the AEBS, which doesn't make a lot of sense.

Presentation display, maybe?

Here's a thought: Could Apple create some kind of AEBS+Apple TV device with the new Thunderbolt connector? Hey, I'd buy one of those…...

 

[WallpaperPerson]

You can do that already with ethernet. It's called Remote Desktop.

Edit: Oh, I get it... you want to connect a standalone monitor in a remote location. I'm clear on the setup now (if that's correct), but not the purpose. What on earth would the purpose of a remote monitor be that would necessitate using this technology?

To stream movies to with headphones or speakers (they send this data over Thunderbolt) so you don't need a computer with the TV or computer monitor.

 

[waw74]

To stream movies to with headphones or speakers (they send this data over Thunderbolt) so you don't need a computer with the TV or computer monitor.

Already have one, it's called an TV

computer monitors are typically higher resolution and cost than a TV screen. and HDMI is perfectly ok to handling those resolutions now. No need to start a new connector on TVs.

 

[milicia]

I think the thunderbolt port would be on the next airport extreme or the one after. either that or Apple goes with USB 3.0. But since they done't seem to be going to USB 3 for some reason, a Thunderbolt port seems like a logical step. Wireless N will do 288.9 Mbps (36.1 MB/s) maximum which is still faster that USB 2.0 typically goes. So I would think the thunderbolt port would help get better transfer rates over wireless.

 

[mcarling]

I'm in the market for a RAID array to store my collection of iTunes movies and Time Machine backups (because the capacity of my Time Capsule is becoming a problem). I'm considering the Promise R4 or R6. The only interface is Thunderbolt. That means I need to either get a RAID array with USB rather than (or in addition to) Thunderbolt or I need an Airport Express which supports Thunderbolt. I'm really not interested in USB for a RAID array in 2012.

 

[waw74]

I'm in the market for a RAID array to store my collection of iTunes movies and Time Machine backups (because the capacity of my Time Capsule is becoming a problem). I'm considering the Promise R4 or R6. The only interface is Thunderbolt. That means I need to either get a RAID array with USB rather than (or in addition to) Thunderbolt or I need an Airport Express which supports Thunderbolt. I'm really not interested in USB for a RAID array in 2012.

which you're going to access over wireless?

USB2 is faster than your wireless signal, so no need for thunderbolt.

 

[DaveGee]

which you're going to access over wireless?

USB2 is faster than your wireless signal, so no need for thunderbolt.

You still missed the point about gigabit Ethernet and attaching a TB raid to the base station.

Also if apple REALLY wanted to drive TB sales it would be smart for them to put it everywhere and then sell and/or promote the heck out of 3rd party TB docking bars.

Imagine a AEBS with just two ports...

First would be for connecting to the existing Ethernet and the second being a TB port.

Developers could make any combination of TB port bars...

6 Ethernet ports for those who want to have the AEBS act as an Ethernet switch
6 Ethernet and 2 or more USB2 ports + audio out ala AirPlay
6 Ethernet and 2 or more UBS3 ports or SATA6 ports or FW800 ports

Plus they could do it in a elegant way and loose the need for different permutations of AEBS and 2TB time machines and 3TB time machines and airport express devices.

1 AEBS is all they'd need to make and then docking stations with all of the various options in docks that would have similar shapes.

The bonus being the docks would be attractive to not just AEBS owners but also MacBook airs, iMacs, MacBook pros, Mac minis etc.

The extra bonus being the AEBS would have far less components so it would cost less and be easily upgradable without the needless replacement of all the ports and components usually found in a AEBS or a time machine unit.

Seems like a great deal with everyone coming out ahead.