The typical curve is that the early adopters will buy it even though it is relatively expensive, while the mass market will follow sometime later. Last night I moved about 150 GB of video files onto the USB3.0 disk that I have hanging on my main video box. The USB3.0 interface on the box came with my new motherboard, while the external hard drive USB3.0 container cost me about $50. If I had waited a couple of weeks until it went on sale I could have gotten it for $30. Did I "need" it? Probably not, I could have used eSATA for about the same price. But I did want it, and it didn't cost me all that much more.
LOL Come on, get real. Since when has a CONSUMER backed up a terabyte of data. I would wager that 99% have not. I did not say that there was not a need. It is just not there yet. When there is price parity, bring it on.
Apparently you have never looked at the runtime performance difference when copying a terabyte of data. Most consumers want usb3. Usb2 to usb3 is like comparing a dial-up modem to a broadband cable or DSL modem.
where did you get these numbers OK I looked it up::
HD video = 16mbps (typical)
USB 2.0 = 480Mbps.
Most consumers do not YET need USB 3.0.
I am not saying that it is not needed but not every one that buys a computer needs it. Until costs are comparable with 2.0 I will wait.
One example of the need for USB3 is HD video cameras which have become standard. Also there is a need for storage for HD video editing. HD video editing would benefit from the fastest transfer rates possible. External hard drives and SSDs can be put in RAID configurations that feed high bandwidth channels.
As we unveil EE Times’ 2015 Silicon 60 list, journalist & Silicon 60 researcher Peter Clarke hosts a conversation on startups in the electronics industry. Panelists Dan Armbrust (investment firm Silicon Catalyst), Andrew Kau (venture capital firm Walden International), and Stan Boland (successful serial entrepreneur, former CEO of Neul, Icera) join in the live debate.