Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Thunderbolt

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 211 posts

Re: Thunderbolt

#131

Post by mortenjorck »

pmjordan wrote: post #87
jordanroher wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if Apple will eventually replace the dock connector on the iPhone/iPad with Thunderbolt? That would be a compelling reason to upgrade: your music sync time would be freed of another bottleneck. Of course, it kind of messes with the third-party accessory market, but I'm sure they'd love another reason to get people to buy new stuff.

I doubt it, PCIe (apparently the main underlying protocol) isn't a common feature of ARM SoC systems.

Even if it's not part of ARM's reference designs, could Apple integrate it into a future A-series chip?

Re: Thunderbolt

#132

Post by cookiecaper »

patrickyeon wrote: post #109
DarrenLehane wrote: post #85

Anybody notice how it shares the name with HTC's 'ThunderBolt' 4G phone being released, and how it looks like both Intel and HTC have trademarks on the word?

It's perfectly reasonable for two entities to have trademarks on the same word, so long as they aren't in the same business. In this case (without looking at the relevant legal paperwork), HTC could trademark 'Thunderbolt' with respect to phones, mobile devices, whatnot, while Intel may have the trademark with respect to peripheral data connections. Nobody (except maybe Monster Cable) would have an issue with that ar…

And what if a phone one day wants to support a Thunderbolt interface? I think that they're a bit too close to one another, both being parts of the consumer electronic space.

Thunderbolt the phone, however, can be expected to have a much shorter lifespan than a new connector like this.

Re: Thunderbolt

#133

Post by morganw »

sammcd wrote: post #48
jordanroher wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if Apple will eventually replace the dock connector on the iPhone/iPad with Thunderbolt? That would be a compelling reason to upgrade: your music sync time would be freed of another bottleneck. Of course, it kind of messes with the third-party accessory market, but I'm sure they'd love another reason to get people to buy new stuff.

Also remember that the doc connector is a revenue source. I'm having trouble finding a source right now, but if I am remembering right Apple sells the actual dock connectors to accessory makers.

Sparkfun sells male and female connectors: http://www.sparkfun.com/categories/101

Re: Thunderbolt

#134

Post by ZoFreX »

tygorius wrote: post #103
sgt wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes.. 50% chance of getting it right every time, even though it feels like less than that! It doesn't help that some motherboards put the USB ports upside-down for some inexplicable reason, and when it's dark you can't see the little USB logo on the cable anyway.

Oh, it's not so bad once you take advertising sub-clause of the spec into account. That's the hidden clause that states the USB logo will be on the top of a properly-oriented plug unless you're Microsoft or Logitech, in which case your corporate name is allowed top-billing, so to speak. Of course, if the slots are oriented vertically...

Microsoft USB plugs all have a little nub on the "top" side, if memory serves.

Re: Thunderbolt

#135

Post by cpr »

ilmare wrote: post #116

Now the question is how long it would take market to catch up with adapters/hubs or updated hardware.

No hubs--it's a chaining protocol.

Re: Thunderbolt

#136

Post by mortenjorck »

hop wrote: post #71
jordanroher wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if Apple will eventually replace the dock connector on the iPhone/iPad with Thunderbolt? That would be a compelling reason to upgrade: your music sync time would be freed of another bottleneck. Of course, it kind of messes with the third-party accessory market, but I'm sure they'd love another reason to get people to buy new stuff.

Thunderbolt may work thru the 30 pin conector, needs four lanes of copper. We should know Tuesday if they do it with the iPad 2.

I'm no hardware engineer, but I'd imagine a new iPad would integrate a Thunderbolt controller in a similar manner to how the older iPods integrated a FireWire controller.

Re: Thunderbolt

#137

Post by cal5k »

gamble wrote: post #118
maggit wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to read about this. Is there an available document explaining why? Or do you know the reason? (Not that I hate copper or anything, it is just that they designed it for fiber from the beginning and then suddenly bailed out)

Same reason why every interface standard that flirts with optical eventually ends up supporting copper: optical components are more expensive, and over short runs you can get acceptable performance with copper.

They're also not as flexible a copper...

Re: Thunderbolt

#138

Post by ComputerGuru »

capstone wrote: post #124
zppx wrote: post #11

Two questions: Is it royalty-free? If the answer is negative, what are the licensing terms?

Thunderbolt technology leverages the native PCI Express and DisplayPort device drivers available in many operating systems today. This native software support means no extra software development is required to use a Thunderbolt technology enabled product. http://www.intel.com/technology/io/thunderbolt/325136-001US_...

Not enough. That's talking about support from developers, not whether hardware vendors need to pay for licensing to include this tech in their hardware.

That said, Mini DisplayPort is free of hardware licensing fees... so there's a good chance.

Re: Thunderbolt

#139

Post by pmjordan »

mortenjorck wrote: post #131
pmjordan wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt it, PCIe (apparently the main underlying protocol) isn't a common feature of ARM SoC systems.

Even if it's not part of ARM's reference designs, could Apple integrate it into a future A-series chip?

This goes beyond my knowledge of hardware design, but I suspect there's no fundamental reason preventing it. The signal processing at those sort of clock rates may however consume more power than is practical - I don't know.

Re: Thunderbolt

#140

Post by rexf »

yread wrote: post #28
hop wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

USB2 and FireWire were close to the same speed. Thunderbolt is twice as fast as USB3 and can push DisplayPorts, so I doubt it will be the same.

Yes, but 1) USB3 has a 1 year lead - check out how many products are out already 2) 5Gbps vs 10Gbps. There are just a couple of SSDs that need SATA III (6Gbps) because the 3Gbps isn't enough. You just don't need the speed for disk I/O. What for then? Current DisplayPorts 1.2 has 17Gbps so I don't really see the Thunderbolt replacing it. also Firewire 800 was substantially faster in theoretical and particularly in pra…

#2 is classic technology short-sightedness. How many times have people said that a 100 GB Hard Drive, 2 GB RAM, etc. is more than sufficient?
Post reply on HN