WDC My Book Thunderbolt Duo Drive Pricing and Shipping Announced

[toke lahti]

Thunderbolt didn't cripple anything. Thunderbolt doesn't support the DisplayPort 1.2 HBR2 link rate, but it does support multiple streams of DisplayPort 1.1a and supplies far more aggregate video bandwidth than any version of HDMI to date. Considering that the first sink device to support DisplayPort 1.2 was only certified on August 22, 2011, and I haven't seen any consumer products that yet require it, I don't believe many folks will notice the lack of DP 1.2 support for some time yet.

Bandwidths and approval years are:
hdmi 1.0, 2002, 3.96 Gb/s
hdmi 1.3, 2006, 8.16 Gb/s
dp 1.0/1.1, 2006/2007, 8.64 Gb/s
dp 1.2, 2009, 17.28 Gb/s
tb's dp, 2011, 8.64 Gb/s

So hdmi & tb are quite the same, but tb was a step back from dp.
As for future use, it might get sooner than many of us think.
Since ipad now has over 3Mpx display and Apple will be shipping HiDPI version of OsX, we could very likely get over 10Mpx displays within a year.
Eg. 3840x2400x60Hz@10bit would need 16.59 Gb/s.
Well, if Cactus Ridge raises tb's dp back to v1.2...

The biggest problem with ExpressCard slots is the insane amount of real estate they require. They are enormous by MacBook Air / Ultrabook standards. Apple dropped ExpressCard slots on all but the 17-inch MacBook Pros because there was no way to justify the amount of space they consume in smaller devices, especially once they switched to non-removeable batteries. Thunderbolt provides twice the PCIe bandwidth of, and more data bandwidth altogether than ExpressCard 2.0, which has barely taken off yet. Furthermore, it sits on top of a small and already present port. By also allowing daisy-chaining, Thunderbolt is much more flexible than giving users just a single ExpressCard slot.

Of course technically tb is superior, but if it will be too expensive to breakthrough to mainstream, there will be much more limited variety of products using it and at the same time, same products with usb3 and a bit lower specs, but with a fraction in price.

About EC's real estate, it isn't so insanely bigger if you compare it to combination of sd card slot, tb connector and tb controller.

But if you think that Apple gave us tb instead of usb3 for better computing experience and not just to rip us off with fancy name & $50 cables, can you explain why did they took EC readers off?
Because mainstream users didn't use it?
Well, they won't use tb either...
Did unibody as construction eat all space up, so it didn't fit there anymore?
Did internal battery needed so much more space, that EC didn't fit anymore?

And the biggest question: why did Apple thought 2.5 years that MBP does not need EC, but now thinks that all computers need TB?
Imacs or minis didn't need any expandability, although there has always been space for EC slot, nor did they need any other fast connection (esata, usb3, 10GbaseT), but now they need it?

You couldn't daisy chain EC cards, but there are still problems with tb.
Major problem comes from that you have only 1 port that you share between display data and other data.
Within first year of existence there is only 1 single model of displays, which supports tb. Monitor manufacturers do not seem to trust that tb will succeed...
You can't attach 2 dp monitors to tb port (even if controller could feed 4 displays?!?). Or you can't have 1 dp monitor and 1 tb device with only 1 tb port. (Hmmm, at least half of different tb devices on market now has only 1 port...?)

The 5.7% figure is based on the total number of USB 3.0 controllers shipped by all foundries to date, and the estimated total number of PC's currently in use in the world today. It is on the high side because there are clearly many motherboards, add-in cards and PC's out there that contain multiple USB 3.0 controllers. Also there are quite a few that were used on Intel boards that were scrapped because of the 6-series SATA bug, and many that are still in the supply chain that aren't being used by anyone yet.

My crystal ball is a bit foggy at this point when it comes to Thunderbolt. I guess I don't see more than a 20-25% attach rate by 2017, and maybe about 10-20% user adoption rate. So yeah, less than 5% for ThunderBolt. I think 100% user adoption rate of USB 3.0 is optimistic though. Many classes of devices will have no need to progress beyond USB 2.0 in the next 5 years. Those users that don't require the types of devices that will inevitably shift to USB 3.0 may be plugging something into a USB 3.0 port, but it won't be a USB 3.0 device. You could argue that anyone who plugs a DisplayPort device into a Thunderbolt port is a Thunderbolt user, in which case usage figures might be much higher.

Many people will no doubt be happy with USB 3.0's 400 MB/s, but there is no avoiding the fact that a Thunderbolt cable can carry more than 5x that much today and with much lower latency. Thunderbolt is what you need when you need more than 400 MB/s. Even if most people don't, for those that do, the choice will be obvious.

So are you surprised with this 5.7%?
Most computers never get upgraded. So only way to get saturation up, is to wait that old computers die away.
I'd bet that 99% of computers made next year, that have usb ports, will have usb3. Then you wait that installed base renews, about 5 years and usb3 will have 99% market penetration and there's just nothing that could prevent this happening. (Okay, if Apple keeps their stubborn attitude, only 95%...)
As for tb, it might be just another ADC or fw. It can die away fast or just remain alive in niche, in co-existence with eg. 10GbaseT, usb4, HDbaseT, hdmi1.5, etc...

 

[repoman27]

So hdmi & tb are quite the same, but tb was a step back from dp.
As for future use, it might get sooner than many of us think.
Since ipad now has over 3Mpx display and Apple will be shipping HiDPI version of OsX, we could very likely get over 10Mpx displays within a year.
Eg. 3840x2400x60Hz@10bit would need 16.59 Gb/s.
Well, if Cactus Ridge raises tb's dp back to v1.2...

Thunderbolt is not "a step back from DisplayPort." It is fully compliant with the DisplayPort 1.1a spec, and incorporates many of the features of DP 1.2. There are simply no displays on the market that support HBR2. The [staggeringly expensive] 4K displays that are out there are focused at home theater and operate at lower refresh rates which can be handled by HDMI 1.4 or DP 1.1. What I was referring to in my prior post regarding certification dates was for DP 1.2 sink devices, i.e. displays that can actually use a DP 1.2 HBR2 signal. And although there was one chipset certified in August of last year, I am not aware of any currently available devices based on it.

Aside from HBR2 (and part of the impetus behind it), one of the major new features of DP 1.2 is multi stream transport. Due to the absolute dearth of daisy-chainable DP 1.2 displays and/or MST hubs, this technology has been totally MIA. The Light Ridge Thunderbolt controller provides 2 DisplayPort 1.1a source inputs and 1 sink output, thus effectively providing MST in the here and now. Granted it only works for 2 displays and not 63, but at least it's a start.

Unfortunately, even if Apple released a 3840x2400 stand-alone display for $499 they couldn't sell 3 million in a weekend. The economies of scale that mobile devices like the iPad allow for are crazy.

edit: To clarify, MST was always the more likely to be used feature of DP 1.2 that could leverage the additional bandwidth of HBR2, not 3840x2400, 24bpp, 60Hz displays. Although it is divided into two streams with a maximum data rate of 8.64 Gbps, the outbound DisplayPort bandwidth provided by the Light Ridge Thunderbolt controller is equal to the maximum specified by DP 1.2. Additionally, it also allows for an 8.64 Gbps inbound stream. Macs that rely solely on an Intel IGP have no way of outputting a DP 1.2 HBR2 signal anyway, so there is absolutely no "step back" involved in those cases.

About EC's real estate, it isn't so insanely bigger if you compare it to combination of sd card slot, tb connector and tb controller.

But if you think that Apple gave us tb instead of usb3 for better computing experience and not just to rip us off with fancy name & $50 cables, can you explain why did they took EC readers off?
Because mainstream users didn't use it?
Well, they won't use tb either...
Did unibody as construction eat all space up, so it didn't fit there anymore?
Did internal battery needed so much more space, that EC didn't fit anymore?

An ExpressCard 34 slot is literally 10% of the volume of the battery in the 13-inch MacBook Pro. For a feature that most people rarely use, you can't penalize everyone 10% on battery life all the time. A video out port is kind of an essential feature, and the Thunderbolt port just takes the place of the mini-DP port that used to be there—which is as small as it gets really, unless you're talking micro HDMI. The volume of an SD card slot and a Thunderbolt controller are way less than an ExpressCard slot.

And the biggest question: why did Apple thought 2.5 years that MBP does not need EC, but now thinks that all computers need TB?
Imacs or minis didn't need any expandability, although there has always been space for EC slot, nor did they need any other fast connection (esata, usb3, 10GbaseT), but now they need it?

Now these are good questions. I guess agreeing to buy 18m Thunderbolt controllers in one year probably brought the cost down for Apple (they added Thunderbolt across the board without raising any prices), although it sure doesn't seem to have helped any of the other device manufacturers. The $85-200 premium for third party Thunderbolt accessories is pretty ridiculously steep and deters the interface's adoption for sure.

You couldn't daisy chain EC cards, but there are still problems with tb.
Major problem comes from that you have only 1 port that you share between display data and other data.
Within first year of existence there is only 1 single model of displays, which supports tb. Monitor manufacturers do not seem to trust that tb will succeed...
You can't attach 2 dp monitors to tb port (even if controller could feed 4 displays?!?). Or you can't have 1 dp monitor and 1 tb device with only 1 tb port. (Hmmm, at least half of different tb devices on market now has only 1 port...?)

But the fact of the matter is that there IS a single Thunderbolt display available that can be daisy chained, and no other digital display interface can claim that yet. There are to date no displays which support DisplayPort 1.2 MST, or any MST hubs available for purchase.

So are you surprised with this 5.7%?

No, and I agree that by the end of the year that figure will be closer to 20%. I just see a lot of people posting as if everyone was already using USB 3.0 and Apple was the last hold-out. Most OEM's are playing the same game as Apple, waiting for chipsets with integrated USB 3.0 support. I will be very surprised if we don't see the announcement of a Mac with USB 3.0 by the end of this month (or thereabouts.)

 

[toke lahti]

Unfortunately, even if Apple released a 3840x2400 stand-alone display for $499 they couldn't sell 3 million in a weekend. The economies of scale that mobile devices like the iPad allow for are crazy.
[...]
Macs that rely solely on an Intel IGP have no way of outputting a DP 1.2 HBR2 signal anyway, so there is absolutely no "step back" involved in those cases.

People who need advanced tech, don't want to rely some IGP.
Spec wise tb was a step back. And the fact that there are still no products that you can't use because of this, does not mean that there won't be those in the future.
And lets not forget Airs, which have sort of half-TB.
There are these monsters:
http://www.eizo.com/global/products/duravision/fdh3601/index.html
and as duadHD is kicking in Japan, there will also be mainstream products.
Does this matter depends on how high quality you want. Eg. win7 has supported native 10bit colors from the beginning, so those who want more color precision just switch to windows. ("Cupertino, finally start your photocopiers!")
Making millions of HiDPI screens for ipads also lowers the price for cutting a bit larger pieces from mother glass. And people sure are asking why they can't have it on their new industry's best $3-5k computers.

An ExpressCard 34 slot is literally 10% of the volume of the battery in the 13-inch MacBook Pro. For a feature that most people rarely use, you can't penalize everyone 10% on battery life all the time. A video out port is kind of an essential feature, and the Thunderbolt port just takes the place of the mini-DP port that used to be there—which is as small as it gets really, unless you're talking micro HDMI. The volume of an SD card slot and a Thunderbolt controller are way less than an ExpressCard slot.

13" laptops from Apple have never had EC or PCcard have they?
You could also blame Apple for having sd reader, because it takes space away from battery and people could just use external reader connected to usb.
But if Apple would really cared about connectivity they could have at least offered EC as option same way that they offer different screens.
But they didn't.
When they released tb, they could also have offered tb-hub, which could have had eg. 2 dp ports, usb3, eSATA(p), etc.
But they didn't.
Somehow I feel that they really don't care about connectivity so much.
Tb port is there to sell more ATD's and the rest is on 3rd party's shoulder.

No, and I agree that by the end of the year that figure will be closer to 20%. I just see a lot of people posting as if everyone was already using USB 3.0 and Apple was the last hold-out. Most OEM's are playing the same game as Apple, waiting for chipsets with integrated USB 3.0 support. I will be very surprised if we don't see the announcement of a Mac with USB 3.0 by the end of this month (or thereabouts.)

Can you name any other big computer brand that does not offer usb3 in any model in any way?
Same thing for bd.
So, being "premium" brand, Apple has really been holding on obsolete tech for years. And buyers who want state-of-the-art, aren't really enjoying this.

 

[repoman27]

People who need advanced tech, don't want to rely some IGP.
Spec wise tb was a step back. And the fact that there are still no products that you can't use because of this, does not mean that there won't be those in the future.
And lets not forget Airs, which have sort of half-TB.
There are these monsters:
http://www.eizo.com/global/products/duravision/fdh3601/index.html
and as duadHD is kicking in Japan, there will also be mainstream products.
Does this matter depends on how high quality you want. Eg. win7 has supported native 10bit colors from the beginning, so those who want more color precision just switch to windows. ("Cupertino, finally start your photocopiers!")
Making millions of HiDPI screens for ipads also lowers the price for cutting a bit larger pieces from mother glass. And people sure are asking why they can't have it on their new industry's best $3-5k computers.

People who need advanced tech combined with a high degree of portability do rely on IGP's. There is a certain point where the size/TDP of the device makes the inclusion of a discrete GPU a much less viable option.

I agree that 1.1 is less than 1.2, and on a spec sheet this can be construed as a step backwards, but in the real world, it near as makes no difference. Apple has never shipped a Mac with a DisplayPort output that supports resolutions higher than 2560x1600. This is due to the fact that although AMD and NVIDIA have shipped GPU's that list DisplayPort 1.2 support, until January of this year, none of them have been able to deliver more than 2560x1600 pixels per stream. AMD does list MST capability for their 6-series cards, but not 4K resolutions. So once again, what you've traded is the possibility of using MST enabled devices at some undetermined point in the future, for dual-stream and bi-directional capabilities now.

The EIZO display that you linked to is actually a prime example of why getting hung up on DisplayPort version numbers is irrelevant. It's a $30,000 DP 1.1a display. Like all 4K displays in the wild, it uses 2x DP 1.1a or 2x dual-link DVI connections to drive the full resolution.

I'm pretty sure that both Windows and Mac OS X have the same issues with deep color, namely driver and application support. If all your hardware can manage deep color, and you're using an application that uses the proper graphics hooks, you still need a driver that can get the job done. At the moment, that limits you to FirePro or Quadro cards under Windows, and also using OpenGL on the Mac.

The MBA's Thunderbolt port has the exact same PCIe bandwidth as any other 1st gen Thunderbolt port. It only has a single DisplayPort input, however, so it can only drive a single external display. Considering that the Intel IGP can only drive 2 displays, it would need to blank the built-in display in order to drive a second external anyway. Not a particularly huge deal for an ultra-portable, IMO. But I guess it's easier to spread the FUD than actually try to understand the difference between the Light Ridge and Eagle Ridge chips.

13" laptops from Apple have never had EC or PCcard have they?
You could also blame Apple for having sd reader, because it takes space away from battery and people could just use external reader connected to usb.
But if Apple would really cared about connectivity they could have at least offered EC as option same way that they offer different screens.
But they didn't.
When they released tb, they could also have offered tb-hub, which could have had eg. 2 dp ports, usb3, eSATA(p), etc.
But they didn't.
Somehow I feel that they really don't care about connectivity so much.
Tb port is there to sell more ATD's and the rest is on 3rd party's shoulder.

Yeah, I just threw out the number for the 13-inch because it was bigger. An ExpressCard 34 slot would still take 7.5% of the volume of the 15-inch MBP's battery though. They take up around 19.5 cm^3. The SD card slot that Apple uses in the 15-inch MBP only extends a couple mm further into the chassis than the audio ports do, and only consumes about 2 cm^3. When you also consider that it is far likelier that a potential Mac buyer already owns an SD card rather than an ExpressCard 34, the sacrifice of less than 1% of battery volume for this feature can be rationalized.

Express card slots are not a viable BTO option, they're either engineered into the design or they're not. And a hub such as you suggest could be built with existing silicon but would sell for ~$450 (plus another $49 for the cable) and would require writing and validating at least a USB 3.0 driver and possibly an AHCI driver for the SATA controller as well. It is no wonder why this product has not made it to market yet.

Apple doesn't really focus on expansion buses. Steve Jobs hated them even in the Apple II days, which is why the first Macs had no expansion slots. I wonder if this attitude will change at all in the post-Jobs era.

Can you name any other big computer brand that does not offer usb3 in any model in any way?
Same thing for bd.
So, being "premium" brand, Apple has really been holding on obsolete tech for years. And buyers who want state-of-the-art, aren't really enjoying this.

Can you name any other big computer brand that only makes 9 different models with less than 30 motherboard variants in total? Apple decided a while back to focus on making fewer models and higher margins, and it has paid off handsomely.

Blu-ray is a totally different story than USB 3.0. The licensing fees and DRM requirements that go along with adding Blu-ray support are totally uncool. Furthermore, Blu-ray may have seemingly won the HD format war, but the reality is that its popularity has already peaked. Blu-ray will never be as ubiquitous as DVD or VHS were. The American public, at least, has overwhelmingly voted for convenience over quality when it comes to their media. Downloading trumps putting on pants to rent a video or buy a CD any day. Apple decided to invest in a massive data center instead of betting on Blu-ray, and as long as you have a half-decent internet connection, that would seem to have been the smart choice.

Including any feature generally presents some sort of engineering trade-off, Apple doesn't always make the same decisions that other OEM's do, or the ones that would appear obvious to the casual observer, but this would seem to be one of the few things creating any sort of genuine diversity in the market at the moment. In the end, it's good to have choices, even if they aren't always easy ones.

 

[kumquat]

I've now had 3 LaCie drives crash and burn on me spectacularly and am 700 bucks and counting in the hole with the possibility that my files are gone forever anyway. LaCie can choke on a bag of dicks.

I'm getting regular WD 2 TB firewire drives and daisy chaining them for redundancy until the enclosure people produce a 4 array with the ports I actually need and want, i.e. eSATA, firewire 800/400 and USB 3.0 for something resembling a decent price.

Was going to just go with two 3 TB drives but they're too unreliable still both in failure rates and compatibility issues and the floods have jacked their prices up o beyond unreasonable.

WD has terrible reviews for their dual drives all over Amazon. I wouldn't test those waters with important data.

 

[toke lahti]

People who need advanced tech combined with a high degree of portability do rely on IGP's. There is a certain point where the size/TDP of the device makes the inclusion of a discrete GPU a much less viable option.

That's why I think it is ingenious to combine 2 GPU's in one laptop. Then you have a choise. And you should also have that choise when connecting external displays.

The EIZO display that you linked to is actually a prime example of why getting hung up on DisplayPort version numbers is irrelevant. It's a $30,000 DP 1.1a display. Like all 4K displays in the wild, it uses 2x DP 1.1a or 2x dual-link DVI connections to drive the full resolution.

Think about what if Apple didn't try to put TB before it's time and instead upgraded their miniDP to 1.2 & MST.
Then this eizo monster and many others might support now dp1.2+MST.

The MBA's Thunderbolt port has the exact same PCIe bandwidth as any other 1st gen Thunderbolt port. It only has a single DisplayPort input, however, so it can only drive a single external display. Considering that the Intel IGP can only drive 2 displays, it would need to blank the built-in display in order to drive a second external anyway. Not a particularly huge deal for an ultra-portable, IMO. But I guess it's easier to spread the FUD than actually try to understand the difference between the Light Ridge and Eagle Ridge chips.

There's no FUD in saying Eagle Ridge is halfTB. It has 2 pipes instead of 4.

Yeah, I just threw out the number for the 13-inch because it was bigger. An ExpressCard 34 slot would still take 7.5% of the volume of the 15-inch MBP's battery though. They take up around 19.5 cm^3. The SD card slot that Apple uses in the 15-inch MBP only extends a couple mm further into the chassis than the audio ports do, and only consumes about 2 cm^3. When you also consider that it is far likelier that a potential Mac buyer already owns an SD card rather than an ExpressCard 34, the sacrifice of less than 1% of battery volume for this feature can be rationalized.

I guess you are right; even Apple wouldn't wouldn't care about 1%. Although sometimes it seems that they are very strict to follow their own guidelines no matter what would be "the sane solution".

Express card slots are not a viable BTO option, they're either engineered into the design or they're not. And a hub such as you suggest could be built with existing silicon but would sell for ~$450 (plus another $49 for the cable) and would require writing and validating at least a USB 3.0 driver and possibly an AHCI driver for the SATA controller as well. It is no wonder why this product has not made it to market yet.

What I meant was that they would have offered 2 15" models. They've done it before (pro & no-pro).
Actually belkin is going to offer that kind of hub for price of $300.
But it comes 20 months after tb-mbp. Apple should have offered one from day one, if they really wanted any real value for new mbp buyers from tb.
Funny that even tb & usb3 are so different things, it looks like macs not having usb3 will delay tb acceptance.
Since tb is so expensive, 3rd party is waiting for Apple to release usb3 drivers, since 3rd party knows, that nobody wants to buy an expensive tb dock, which will get obsolete in few months, when new models will have usb3.

Apple doesn't really focus on expansion buses. Steve Jobs hated them even in the Apple II days, which is why the first Macs had no expansion slots. I wonder if this attitude will change at all in the post-Jobs era.

What else is tb than expansion bus?
And tb's development was when SJ was still the boss...

Can you name any other big computer brand that only makes 9 different models with less than 30 motherboard variants in total? Apple decided a while back to focus on making fewer models and higher margins, and it has paid off handsomely.

Now you are answering my question with different question.
When Apple reduced their variety, they did it to be more profitable and their sales were way lower than now. Now they could afford more models, since they are anyway going to sell each model more than any model years ago.
It's all about making your customer happier or just making more profits.
But the answer to my question is, that regarding about bd & usb3 Apple is the last in line.
Not very flattering and it's no wonder, that people want to get ODD's away from their macs.
They would say the same thing about serial ports and scsi connectors.
This also makes macs so contradictory products. At the same time they have badly outdated features and something too new to even adpot yet.

Blu-ray is a totally different story than USB 3.0. The licensing fees and DRM requirements that go along with adding Blu-ray support are totally uncool. Furthermore, Blu-ray may have seemingly won the HD format war, but the reality is that its popularity has already peaked. Blu-ray will never be as ubiquitous as DVD or VHS were. The American public, at least, has overwhelmingly voted for convenience over quality when it comes to their media. Downloading trumps putting on pants to rent a video or buy a CD any day. Apple decided to invest in a massive data center instead of betting on Blu-ray, and as long as you have a half-decent internet connection, that would seem to have been the smart choice.

Bd and usb3 are same story in a way I described. Of course bd would have needed Apple to accept to use some other DRM in addition of their own.
Again Apple should let the user to choose and bd's popularity is still increasing, so the game is not over yet.
I can't imagine how macbooks wouldn't be more popular now, if Apple would have integrated bd & usb3 3-4 years ago and if necessary postponed tb for 1-2 years.

 

[John.B]

Bd and usb3 are same story in a way I described. Of course bd would have needed Apple to accept to use some other DRM in addition of their own.

More specifically, Blu-ray would've require Apple to wire that DRM into the core OS. Which is why it'll never happen.

 

[toke lahti]

More specifically, Blu-ray would've require Apple to wire that DRM into the core OS. Which is why it'll never happen.

Nope,
you can run bd's drm in user space. Changing things in kernel space is not mandatory. WinXP can play bd-movies and yes, m$ didn't change it's kernel...

Of course you might mean something else with "core os", but bd's drm changes were exaggarated to a bag-of-hurt-level with no actual reason, just marketing bs.
Apple has implemented it's own "secure path" drm eith itunes movies.
They could have done the same to bd, if they weren't too scared that if consumer is given a choise, they would loose.