You are talking about the latest revisions of the same technologies that Apple was first to adopt. Apple adopts new and better standards, not glossed over revisions of the same old crap!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Was thunderbolt a big rip-off?
- Thread starter bungiefan89
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You are talking about the latest revisions of the same technologies that Apple was first to adopt. Apple adopts new and better standards, not glossed over revisions of the same old crap!
considering the cost of all the current and coming peripherals (e.g. $300 TB hub), I feel like TB is looking more and more like it's aimed at professionals and prosumers, who will pay the extra for the speed so long as the products are reliable and well-supported. consumers will go with USB3.
I'm disappointed that Apple didn't push for more TB products and actually seemed to be hindering development, based on a recent MR post. Apple users have been stuck in limbo as far as connection tech - slow USB2, FW on the way out, no USB3, and nothing to use with TB...and CES hasn't been all that encouraging for TB.
I'm disappointed that Apple didn't push for more TB products and actually seemed to be hindering development, based on a recent MR post. Apple users have been stuck in limbo as far as connection tech - slow USB2, FW on the way out, no USB3, and nothing to use with TB...and CES hasn't been all that encouraging for TB.
Then they should make room. If ultrabooks can do USB 3.0, there's no reason why a MBP that's about 2x-3x as thick can't.
That sounds like a very well-reasoned observation, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were true. After all, the few devices we've seen that are thunderbolt compatible have all been outrageously expensive: external hard drives for $400, $300 thunderbolt hubs, a $1000 monitor (Only one size? Really, Apple?
), and $50 just for a cable.Thunderbolt is great technology, but nobody seems to want to use it by making an affordable and useful product with it.
Since Thunderbolt is starting to appear on other manufacturers Ultrabooks (at least judging from what was unveiled from CES) it is reasonable to assume that in a few months we will see more products at cheaper price points. I don't think it's even really possible to 'call it' for Thunderbolt right now. Firewire took as long if not longer to take off and it's still a fringe connector that most Mac users would complain about if it was taken away (see first Macbook).
I can't believe that this topic was even debated/discussed and it got to four pages in the forum.
Why am I even replying to this thread?
Why am I even replying to this thread?
Who uses VGA these day? I know, I bring my portable 27" iMac to do power point presentations on a VGA projector. When the tb iMac came to Canada the price dropped $100, the humanity. Whenever I'm sad, I look at the back of my iMac a cry because there is a port that I don't use! I also don't understand why they make the 27" iMac so big as I'm not able to fit in my laptop bag, these PowerPoint presentations are starting to hurt my back.
As more companies begin to realize the potential of thunderbolt more devices will be created that use it. Once this happens price will drop. Im looking forward to this day.
As it stands, yeah, its not the most useful thing in the world (Ive had my iMac since August and havent touched it yet) but at least it didnt take anything away. The port was already there they just added to it. Plus having Thunderbolt didnt increase the price of the computer anyway so I dont see the problem with it.
As it stands, yeah, its not the most useful thing in the world (Ive had my iMac since August and havent touched it yet) but at least it didnt take anything away. The port was already there they just added to it. Plus having Thunderbolt didnt increase the price of the computer anyway so I dont see the problem with it.
I wouldn't use the VGA port to send OUT a signal, I'd use it to take IN a signal, i.e. use that glorious 27" display to play my Xbox 360 on or something.
And it doesn't have to be VGA, it could be DVI or HDMI or something more mainstream than the ultra-expensive and scarcely-used thunderbolt.
Is it so odd that I'd like to use such a beautiful screen as an external monitor or small TV?
No, I'm in full agreement. I'd love to take advantage of the screen and flick between my Xbox & Mac on the same screen.
Read a thread about that Kanex adapter and thought I'd found the solution until I read into it further and found it wasn't. Sad times.
Are they developing one?
Yeah! It's like... "Let's make really fancy and powerful technology but NOT let 3rd party developers use it so the industry as a whole can benefit through new products USING the technology. DERP!"
Well I agree with the OP.
Naturally, all the Apple apologists will 'thumbs down' any comment that doesn't sing Apple's praises ... But OP is correct.
It's been about a year now, and all we have are overpriced RAID storage solutions obviously meant for industry/corporations. Where are the consumer Thunderbolt devices?
Least Apple could do is to help kick start the adoption of a standard that they helped develop.
Naturally, all the Apple apologists will 'thumbs down' any comment that doesn't sing Apple's praises ... But OP is correct.
It's been about a year now, and all we have are overpriced RAID storage solutions obviously meant for industry/corporations. Where are the consumer Thunderbolt devices?
Least Apple could do is to help kick start the adoption of a standard that they helped develop.
"Or if my iMac came with a thunderbolt adapter for VGA out or something wold have been nice."
VGA out is exactly what you said!!!
Should the iMac have come with an better way for a video input? Yes 100%
As for video out solutions there are many adapters and nicer all in one cables for under 10$ online.
For my MacBook air I have a nice mini dp to hdmi cable. I also have a 3 in one mini dp to dvi, hdmi, dp cable.
Then apparently, you like many others have external connections lower on the priority list whereas those with that $500 PC it may mean more.
Not a knock against you, just one needs to make a list of important options and make their decision and go.
Off the wall example: My wife complains that her $85,000 Mercedes doesn't have air conditioned seats but my $60,000 pickup does. She didn't even care about it before I bought my truck. What do I tell her, go buy another car if that is what is important to you. If not, get in your car and drive.
I think the most exciting thing about TB is being able in the future to buy a box full of PCIe slots. So imac owners can upgrade their video cards and other internal gubbins which are at the moment unreplaceable. One company whose name eludes me at the moment are supposed to be releasing a rackmount unit this month which contains a mac mini and several PCIe card slots. Amazing.
To tie this in with another popular discussion point on these forums, I think Thunderbolt is currently suffering somewhat due to the existential limbo of the Mac Pro.
The Mac Pro may be a tiny segment of Apple's line, but if you're looking for consumers most likely to use a high-end interface, you're probably looking at those who would purchase that tiny segment. Thunderbolt may be useful for circumventing some of the traditional limitations of the iMac vs the Mac Pro, which may eventually convince some Pro users to migrate that way, but the people who buy umpteen thousand dollars worth of high-bandwidth peripherals largely buy ridiculously high end computers.
Breaking Thunderbolt out of that Pro rut and giving it some consumer appeal would help, but that doesn't seem all that likely in the near-term due to its cost. So if it's meant to be the super-awesome port for Macs for super-awesome high-end peripherals (and leave the other ports for the consumer stuff), there needs to be some sort of certainty for those who rely upon and crave those sorts of devices, so that they can move forward and embrace them. Until then, it's a Pro port with a good chunk of the Pro users who would use it left out in the cold, investing in non-Thunderbolt infrastructure instead.
Alternately, Apple/Intel could just subsidize third-party device manufacturers to get the ball rolling.
The Mac Pro may be a tiny segment of Apple's line, but if you're looking for consumers most likely to use a high-end interface, you're probably looking at those who would purchase that tiny segment. Thunderbolt may be useful for circumventing some of the traditional limitations of the iMac vs the Mac Pro, which may eventually convince some Pro users to migrate that way, but the people who buy umpteen thousand dollars worth of high-bandwidth peripherals largely buy ridiculously high end computers.
Breaking Thunderbolt out of that Pro rut and giving it some consumer appeal would help, but that doesn't seem all that likely in the near-term due to its cost. So if it's meant to be the super-awesome port for Macs for super-awesome high-end peripherals (and leave the other ports for the consumer stuff), there needs to be some sort of certainty for those who rely upon and crave those sorts of devices, so that they can move forward and embrace them. Until then, it's a Pro port with a good chunk of the Pro users who would use it left out in the cold, investing in non-Thunderbolt infrastructure instead.
Alternately, Apple/Intel could just subsidize third-party device manufacturers to get the ball rolling.
thunderbolt will now start to come down in price and availability, intel are now launching on other laptops such as lenovo, they prices are so high due to the lack of a market. i still think it will stay at a premium price though for at least 12 months
True, but unfortunately, eSATA is not a particularly good external peripheral connection solution: it still requires external power, is limited only to SATA storage devices, etc. We need to remember that its history of how it became popular was because the Windows PC hardware manufacturers like stuff that's a "Feature" and that is dirt cheap.
As such, the paradigm and question is if we want something that's cheap, or if we're willing to pay for value.
Agreed. I've been holding off on pulling the trigger for a new Mac Pro for the external peripheral connection to get better than FW800 ... and that's despite my current Mac having a SATA/eSATA card in it.
Plus if you do the pricing, a Mac Pro + 27" TB display is $3500, whereas a 27" iMac i7 + Pegasus R4 is $3150 ... that's only a 10% difference, so it is hard to claim with a straight face that the iMac offers a huge price advantage for the higher-end Mac customer base.
It also did not help that Intel failed to deliver their Developer's Kit back when they originally promised (June 2011)...and I've still not found a press release that even as of today, it has finally been made available.
Well said. Personally, I really really really do not want to invest anything more in eSATA...and I'd really like to have some high performance peripherals that are better than FW400 and FW800.
Not sure if that's really in their DNA, although it does appear evident that someone was "boosting" Promise and LaCie in early 2011, and there is a small group of 'second round' suppliers that are working at TB products now.
The other thing that I see is that there is still an education gap vs. how slow USB3 was out of the gate (1 year to first hardware product), as well as a shortage of awareness as to how much products like a high performance Drobo actually cost for which the first-out-of-the-gate TB stuff is trying to be compared to. For example, one choice is between an $1100 Promise R4 versus $700 for a "fast" (for Drobo) but still far slower RAID ... this really isn't the same playing field as the $100 price point for a USB-based single spindle external hard drive.
-hh
The problem is that there is minimal support from the hardware manufacturers at this point. And why? Because to get support for it you have to embed special chips onto the motherboard to use it because Intel does not yet offer it integrated into it's bridges. BUT that is all about to change. In a few months the new Intel chips will be out and they have native support for Thunderbolt. At that point most new PC's will be getting Thunderbolt. THEN the manufacturers will start to take hold.
The second part is that the manufacturers won't support it until there are 3rd party, cheap chips supporting it. This way they can build their products by buying off the shelf chips. These chips will take a year or two to design and fab. Thunderbolt is just too new at this time to become main stream. It will happen because Intel will embed it in every chipset they sell -- which means most computers will have it.
Eventually 3rd party, off the shelf chips, will exist. As of right now, a quick search turned up almost nothing on 3rd party Thunderbolt Chips. It take time to develop technology to handle these types of data rates.
USB1 was pre-released (about where Apple is with Thunderbolt right now) in 1994. USB1 was officially released in 1996. But it wasn't until USB2 was released in 2000 that it became wide spread and accepted. (one could argue USB1.1 in 1998 did this.) That's almost 6 years before it became accepted. Patience people, patience.
The opening post asks if Thunderbolt technology was a "rip off"...
I wouldn't call it a "rip-off" per se, because something like that is intended to scam people out of their money.
Instead, Thunderbolt is a nifty technology that has turned out to be a marketplace dud. It has become the "Edsel" of connection paradigms.
Even firewire 800 -- which has not done well in terms of market penetration (how many Mac folks are actually using FW800 devices?) -- sells leaps and bounds ahead of TBolt.
Apple would have done much better to eschew TBolt in favor of USB3, even if that meant a custom chip on the motherboard to do so. Or perhaps even to include some kind of E-SATA capability on their machines, at least the iMacs, minis, and Mac Pro's.
Others are going to respond to this post with the [correct] assertions that neither USB3 nor E-SATA can equal TBolt's technological advantages. That's 100% true.
But it's the old "Betamax vs. the other" story, once again. Superior technology doesn't necessarily translate to a thriving market. And without sales to support it, TBolt will eventually become an obscure connection port on the Mac that no one uses...
I wouldn't call it a "rip-off" per se, because something like that is intended to scam people out of their money.
Instead, Thunderbolt is a nifty technology that has turned out to be a marketplace dud. It has become the "Edsel" of connection paradigms.
Even firewire 800 -- which has not done well in terms of market penetration (how many Mac folks are actually using FW800 devices?) -- sells leaps and bounds ahead of TBolt.
Apple would have done much better to eschew TBolt in favor of USB3, even if that meant a custom chip on the motherboard to do so. Or perhaps even to include some kind of E-SATA capability on their machines, at least the iMacs, minis, and Mac Pro's.
Others are going to respond to this post with the [correct] assertions that neither USB3 nor E-SATA can equal TBolt's technological advantages. That's 100% true.
But it's the old "Betamax vs. the other" story, once again. Superior technology doesn't necessarily translate to a thriving market. And without sales to support it, TBolt will eventually become an obscure connection port on the Mac that no one uses...
Disagree, I believe it will become more prevalent over the years. Of course USB 3.0 will dominate the market, but I guarantee we'll see TB hit FW800 market share if not more.
Hopefully the pre-Thunderbolt 27" iMacs will retain their value well on the second-hand market, since they can accept a DisplayPort signal as input.
I suspect that by the time I feel that I need to connect a Thunderbolt device to my 2010 iMac (and have the [pile of?] money required), this machine will be pretty much obsolete anyway.
Do we know yet whether PC manufacturers will, as a rule, include video-out (i.e. DisplayPort) on their Thunderbolt ports? Is that mandated by the spec' or something? What I am asking, is whether ANY PC with a Thunderbolt port will be able to send video to a Thunderbolt iMac.
I suspect that by the time I feel that I need to connect a Thunderbolt device to my 2010 iMac (and have the [pile of?] money required), this machine will be pretty much obsolete anyway.
Do we know yet whether PC manufacturers will, as a rule, include video-out (i.e. DisplayPort) on their Thunderbolt ports? Is that mandated by the spec' or something? What I am asking, is whether ANY PC with a Thunderbolt port will be able to send video to a Thunderbolt iMac.