View unanswered posts | View active topics
It is currently Wed Jun 04, 2025 9:31 am
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 6 posts ] |
|
Why a 2 metre Thunderbolt cable costs $50.
Author |
Message |
ProfessorF
What's a life?
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:56 pm Posts: 12030
|

 |  |  |  | Quote: The technology inside Apple's $50 Thunderbolt cable By Chris Foresman | Published a day ago
The first Thunderbolt compatible peripherals—Promise's Pegasus RAIDs—started shipping on Tuesday. Using the RAIDs with a Thunderbolt equipped Mac, though, requires a rather expensive $50 cable that is only available from Apple. We dug into the design of the cable to find out why Apple felt justified in charging $50 for some plastic-wrapped copper wire, and why Thunderbolt may have a hard time gaining traction outside of the higher-end storage and video device market—a fate similar to Apple's FireWire.
Promise's RAIDs do not come supplied with a Thunderbolt cable. Instead, users are directed to buy a Thunderbolt cable directly from Apple, which costs $49 for two-meter length. We contacted Promise to find out why a Mini DisplayPort cable could not be used in its stead, since the Thunderbolt port is based on Mini DisplayPort. A support technician told Ars that Apple's cable is a "smart" cable that "has firmware in it."
Intel confirmed that Thunderbolt requires specific Thunderbolt cables. "Only Thunderbolt cables can be used to connect Thunderbolt products using Thunderbolt connectors," Intel spokesperson Dave Salvator told Ars. "The cables have been designed for the 10Gbps signaling as well as power delivery that are part of Thunderbolt technology."
Active cabling required
Apple didn't respond to our requests for further information about the "firmware in the cable," but an EETimes article from earlier this year noted that in addition to having different electrical characteristics from Mini DisplayPort, Thunderbolt also uses active cabling to achieve full duplex 10Gbps transmission.
A source within the telecom industry explained to Ars that active cables are commonly used at data rates above 5Gbps. These cables contain tiny chips at either end that are calibrated to the attenuation and dispersion properties of the wire between them. Compensating for these properties "greatly improves the signal-to-noise ratio" for high-bandwidth data transmission.
Our friends at iFixit made a trip to a local Apple Store to find out what hardware powers Apple's Thunderbolt cable. CEO Kyle Wiens told Ars that Apple's cable contains two Gennum GN2033 Thunderbolt Transceiver chips to facilitate Thunderbolt's blazing speed.
Each Apple Thunderbolt cable includes a Gennum GN2033 Thunderbolt Transceiver inside the plug at each end. iFixit "Unlike ordinary passive cables that can be used at lower data rates, the unprecedented speed of the new Thunderbolt technology places unique demands on the physical transmission media," according to Gennum's website. "The GN2033 provides the sophisticated signal boosting and detection functions required to transfer high-speed data without errors across inexpensive Thunderbolt copper cables."
Our telecom source noted that Intel made an unusual choice in also using active cabling for future optical-based iterations of Thunderbolt. Passive cabling is more common, but active cabling could offer some advantages. For one, active cables could combine fiber optics with electrical cabling for power transmission. Another good reason to use active optical cables, according to our source, "is that your current electrical ports can be forward compatible with future optical cables."
So far, though, Apple is the only supplier for Thunderbolt cables. Though Gennum is already highlighting its Thunderbolt transceiver chips, Intel would not say when official specs would be released to other manufacturers, or when other suppliers might be able to offer compatible cabling.
FireWire II: Thunderbolt Boogaloo?
The unfortunate side affect of all this is that if you are interested in using Thunderbolt-compatible peripherals—including RAIDs, hard drives, and video I/O devices coming soon—you'll have to buy a $50 cable from Apple for each device. Without additional suppliers, that could lead to trouble in gaining wider adoption for the standard in the industry.
The situation is not unlike the one that plagued FireWire in its early days. Designed by Apple and featured on its own computers, the original FireWire 400 standard offered significant speed improvements over USB 1.1, could supply more power to peripherals, and used an architecture that allowed any FireWire device to communicate with another, making it possible to forgo the need to connect both devices to a host computer.
Despite these benefits, FireWire cost more to implement on a device because it required a separate controller chip in each device. And though Apple turned over the FireWire standard to standards body IEEE, the company originally required additional licensing fees to use the FireWire trademark and logo. This made USB a more attractive, less expensive alternative for device makers.
Apple later relaxed the licensing fees, but an alternate 4-pin, non-powered version of FireWire—dubbed "IEEE 1394" and branded as "i.Link" by Sony—had already begun to gain wide adoption. USB 2.0 improved speeds to be more competitive with FireWire 400, while retaining its cost advantage. A faster FireWire 800 standard emerged, but used an entirely new 9-pin connector that required adapters to use with 6-pin FireWire 400 devices or 4-pin IEEE 1394 devices.
The combination of non-compatible plugs and added cost meant that FireWire ended up being largely confined to high-speed storage and the burgeoning digital video and digital audio industries.
As mentioned previously, the devices featuring Thunderbolt that have been announced so far include a variety of high-performance storage and mobile video I/O devices. Thunderbolt's high bandwidth and low latency are perfect for these applications. But Thunderbolt's high cost in terms of the necessary controllers and relatively expensive active cabling could limit its expansion to the broader market.
Furthermore, Intel only mentioned two vendors aside from Apple who were considering adopting Thunderbolt when it announced the technology earlier this year: HP and Sony. HP ultimately decided it wouldn't be adopting Thunderbolt in its computers any time soon. Sony has announced a new Vaio Z laptop that incorporates Thunderbolt controllers from Intel, but uses a proprietary optical connection via a specially modified USB3 port. That port can connect to a special discrete GPU-equipped docking station that won't be compatible with standard Thunderbolt peripherals.
Thunderbolt may be capable of some impressive speeds, but Apple and Intel run the risk of the technology quickly becoming a dead end if Apple remains the only vendor for Thunderbolt-equipped computers as well as Thunderbolt cables. Greater third-party support will be the key to the broad market adoption needed to support Thunderbolt in the years to come. |  |  |  |  |
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/06/why-apples-2m-thunderbolt-cable-costs-a-whopping-50.arsInteresting observation about this being Firewire II.
|
Thu Jun 30, 2011 11:27 pm |
|
 |
jonbwfc
What's a life?
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:26 pm Posts: 17040
|

To be honest, I think TB is pretty much overkill in 'consumer' situations. You can get enough speed out of a properly optimised USB2 controller setup to satisfy the needs of anyone outside what you'd call 'enterprise' culture. You're never going to be running huge databases or sophisticated high volume web sites or massive collaboration systems on an iMac or macbook pro. The proper applications for thunderbolt are more sophisticated than your typical 'non pro' needs.
The people who need thunderbolt are the enterprise data crowd and music/video production suites. And the enterprise data types would consider $50 for a cable to be just about average (check the price for cat6e or fibre channel kit). The production guys aren't going to be buying tons of them, and rolling a 50 quid cable into the cost of a capture rig that may cost several thousands.. they're not even going to notice it.
The only piece of thunderbolt hardware on the market as yet is a RAID disk array that starts at 700 quid with no disk in it. Nobody's buying that kind of stuff for a soho setup and even if they did it'd be running at 10% of it's capacity 99% of the time so it's a huge waste of money.
I can see why Apple put it in there and I can see applications for it that consumers would find attractive, but I've seen none of them actually being offered yet. For people who do think 50 quid for a cable is expensive, there is literally no need for them to deal with Thunderbolt at all yet and probably won't be for a while. At which point the cables will presumably be cheaper anyway.
Jon
|
Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:37 am |
|
 |
forquare1
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:36 pm Posts: 5150 Location: /dev/tty0
|
I think it's perfect for the consumer. The consumer wants things NOW! Enterprise has fibre, etc. for fast connections. With the transfer speeds, TB sticks would take no time at all to copy stuff to, but Apple are charging $50 for a lead, it doesn't sound like it'll become large computing standard like USB...
|
Fri Jul 01, 2011 3:08 pm |
|
 |
jonbwfc
What's a life?
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:26 pm Posts: 17040
|

TB is utterly wasteful for memory sticks. Most of them are so slow they struggle to flood a USB2 connection, which is a fraction of the speed of TB. To flood a TB connection you need an array of fast SSD drives all throwing data down the line at once. The bottleneck with sticks is definitely not the interface. I'm not entirely sure it's intended to, tbh. They don't ship macs with just TB ports after all. Macs still have USB2 ports, which for the vast majority of applications a 'consumer' would use them for are entirely sufficient. Don't confuse the fact that USB3 has come along with the idea that people actually need USB3/TB speeds. Generally speaking, you don't. The industry is pushing USB3 because we're all drowning in USB2 kit and the market has become so commoditised that there's simply no money to be made selling kit to the few who still need it. USB3 is their way to keep making money and sod what the consumer actually needs. See 3D TVs for another example of this particular business tactic. Put it this way - a 16GB USB2 stick will cost you 12 quid. A 16GB USB3 memory stick will cost you 20 quid. It's probably got exactly the same actual memory chips inside. Think it'll be 50% faster just because you plugged it into the USB3 slot, or do you think it might be a bit faster, then the internal electronics max out? Unless you're transferring GBs of data around day in day out, paying extra for TB over USB2 (let alone USB3) doesn't really make any sense. Jon
|
Fri Jul 01, 2011 4:07 pm |
|
 |
Amnesia10
Legend
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 2:02 am Posts: 29240 Location: Guantanamo Bay (thanks bobbdobbs)
|
For me it will not be until the next upgrade that I will consider it. It looks promising though it will require an upgrade to drives as well, which adds to the costs.
_________________Do concentrate, 007... "You are gifted. Mine is bordering on seven seconds." https://www.dropbox.com/referrals/NTg5MzczNTkhttp://astore.amazon.co.uk/wwwx404couk-21
|
Fri Jul 01, 2011 4:09 pm |
|
 |
rustybucket
I haven't seen my friends in so long
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:10 pm Posts: 5836
|
Pffffft! Active cabling If your interface has to use active cables, you didn't design the interface correctly.
_________________Jim
|
Fri Jul 01, 2011 4:30 pm |
|
|
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 6 posts ] |
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
|
|