Thunderbolt Hubs and docking stations

Do you mean why is there no hub for thunderbolt only?

.

Because thunderbolt compatible hubs already exist, they just have additonal (FW/USB/Ethernet etc) connectors on them, and I am glad that they do. I just want a minimum of 2 tb ports per device so I can continue the chain.

So far inexpensive has not been part of the chain 😟

Yes, but TB was designed as a high speed transport for other protocols (USB/Enet>HDMI etc) to use it purely as a way to connect TB only is a waste. USB 3 is fast enough for HDD and SSD use so external storage is well covered (USB3 is getting a bump to 10Gb/s any day now, so it will be as fast as TB was until recently)

A single purpose TB hub (no other protocol connectors) seems like a waste of resources and would still require a bunch of adaptors to make use of most peripherals (which are not likely to be Thunderbolt equipped)

I think the Belkin has it about right, maybe 1 more TB port and one less USB3, and a lot less money.

You Apple apolgists make me laugh! Thunderbolt ***** and it is Apples fault! It was supposed to be an optical interface. Apple decided on copper to KEEP THEIR PARTS COST DOWN while screwing the entire industry. 10Gbps over optical is trivial. Over copper it becomes a challenge.
Furthermore why in **** do their adapters only include one port with no daisy chaining? Why do most?
In reality coper thunderbolt really is not up to the task of supporting multiple peripherals. Maybe limiting connection options limits the amount of devices that can be connected thus never putting the thunderbolt connection to a real world test of its limits.

brainburst wrote:

You Apple apolgists make me laugh! Thunderbolt ***** and it is Apples fault! It was supposed to be an optical interface.

Wrong, Intel designed it for copper (20Gbps) and Fiber 100Gbps).

It's Intels design, not Apple.

It was a design to Apples requirements! They designed for fiber first. Thunderbolt was designed essentially FOR Apple cheapskates to save maybe $25 per part on the motherboard.

What was Apples designation for the technology before it became marketed as Thunderbolt?

Brainburst, you're clearly just trolling, even though there is some truth to what you've said.

Yes, it was originally designed as optical, but Intel lead the decision to change it to copper, there is no evidence I have come across that Apple requested this. Intel even justified the change to copper in part by saying it was working on bundling the optical fiber with copper wire so that Light Peak can be used to power devices plugged into the PC. Apple's only influence that altered what Thunderbolt would be was altering it from USB-like connections to Mini-DisplayPort like connections.

The technology was co-designed with Apple, but it doesn't mean that Apple produces the chipsets that Thunderbolt uses, Intel does. Apple is just the co-designer here, not the producer, and they are not the only ones who can license it, so putting the blame on Apple is just trolling.

Thunderbolt 2 was revealed by Apple today with their new Mac Pro, this means they are one of the first companies driving the faster version of this standard too. We should appreciate that unlike most PC manufacturers they are actually looking to push such advanced new technologies forward.

Apple don't tell the manufacturers what to produce, the individual companies make these decisions. Economies of scale also dictates how viable production of specific kinds of devices are too, and from all indications, the costs currently associated seems likely the key reason for the lack of hubs most of us desire.

Given that USB3 devices only clock half Thunderbolt 1's speeds at 5GB/s, and Thunderbolt related peripherals are quite costly, a device the full potential bandwidth Thunderbolt is aiming to bring to market would highly likely be completely unviable at this point in time, and I have no doubts Thunderbolt 2 devices when they come to market at their 20GB/s speeds will be even more costly than Thunderbolt devices are now. So given this, does it make sense for a company to introduce a technology that no one but a niche of people could even utilise?

At the end of the day, if you still want blame Apple it's your call, but I see no evidence here beyond your conspiracy theories that provides any substance to it as it being Apple's fault, given that other companies need not go through Apple to produce such hubs...

brainburst wrote:

It was a design to Apples requirements! They designed for fiber first. Thunderbolt was designed essentially FOR Apple cheapskates to save maybe $25 per part on the motherboard.

Please link to the source of this information.

The point is that the optical version was commercially available and Apple chose the coper version.

I am looking for your link to the information that substantiates this statement.

Thunderbolt was designed essentially FOR Apple cheapskates to save maybe $25 per part on the motherboard.

If there is none just say so.

Brainburst, so besides Corning who are currently mass producing optical thunderbolt cables, something they only started producing in January this year and I do not believe is yet publically available anywhere, who else has optical Thunderbolt products user's can buy?

Edit: Apparently this article claims there are optical cables available that existing Mac users with Thunderbolt ports can take advantage of, but the article also mentions one of the disadvantages of optics that I mentioned, it doesn't allow the computer to power the peripherals, they must be self powered. The article is here http://www.macworld.com/article/1166542/optical_cables_for_thunderbolt_ports_shi pped_by_sumitomo.html But there is also another article showing that it appears Sumitomo didn't even ship these cables and they only showcased their cables along with Corning's this year, so it probably never came to market before then either.

Somehow Sony did it in 2011:

http://www.theverge.com/2011/10/14/2490694/how-sony-accidentally-did-the-right-t hing-with-light-peak

Sony did deliver it, to use with a single peripheral, and then elected to never make any other peripherals besides a dock to use with it. None of this points the finger at Apple being the cause here, if anything it shows Intel was playing things timing wise in the hopes Thunderbolt would win over USB3.

An interesting quote from the article only further verifies Apple didn't lead the copper decisions either "Chipzilla is talking about its OEM customers who balked at the costs associated with Intel's fiber optic solution."

Apple selected the Mini-DisplayPort connector, it made sense for them to do so given they already had products that used it. The 'docks' available on the market now (and coming soon) actually mirror the exact kinds of functionality Sony offered with their optical version with the VIAO dock, so bandwidth wise, copper must be sufficiently capable to provide the same kinds of features as Sony had with optical.

That piece by The Verge clearly has an Apple-bashing slant to it. Apple did what suited them (they always play to their own timetables, rarely adopting just because something is popular), Sony did what suited them at the time too (they didn't even look to adopt the consumer title for it, only saying 'derived from light peak technologies'), but if anyone was playing games it was Intel.

Sony's peripheral was also a dock, so the issues optical connections cause due to lack of power also was not an issue, so a number of the Thunderbolt peripherals now available would not have been possible had they not utilised copper too.

I agree that optical would've been a nice option to have, but I don't see how the advantages of it would benefit 99% of consumers out there at this point in time, especially given that Thunderbolt 2 connections allow the new Mac Pro to play real time 4K video content off such devices, and there are few higher bandwidth uses of data transfer than 4K video at this point in time.

"I agree that optical would've been a nice option to have, but I don't see how the advantages of it would benefit 99% of consumers out there at this point in time, especially given that Thunderbolt 2 connections allow the new Mac Pro to play real time 4K video content off such devices, and there are few higher bandwidth uses of data transfer than 4K video at this point in time.

You must be blind then. Optical is cheaper for consumers. Much Faster. All around better. Being passive optical cables don't fail unless physically broken. I've had a half dozen thunderbolt cables fail. And blown two thunder bolt ports. (Covered under warranty fortunately.) Optical connections don't have this problem. They are passive. Only the sensors are active. Light doesn't cause arcing or shorts.

Apple is one of the OEMs being referenced, one of the loudest voices talking to intel. Being early adopters they could have easily supported an optical interface that would have actually been nearly future proof. I find it amusing that h e new mac pro has 6 thunderbolt 2.0 ports all of which COMBINED are just 1.5x the bandwidth of a single PCIe 3.0 x16 slot. (And no they can't be combined. Uch the new mac pro *****)