Can't argue with you there, but the following quotes would have worked just as well
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.
President IBM 1943"
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."
-- Charles Duell, Commissioner of US Patent Office, 1899"
Point being that the arguments that there is no current need for thunderbolt and therefore it won't succeed are short sighted.
Its success is likely more dependent on the inertia of the market than on any current need.
I don't see the point of such a negative article. You really think we'd be better off without it, waiting for some alternative that we haven't heard of yet? Would you have rather seen Apple come out with USB3 ports? What?
Rather, why don't you bitch about how this came about with such apparent exclusivity.
I expect the second rev of TB to be compelling, certainly more so than USB 3/4. Apple, for instance, has had a long history of first-gen products that show amazing potential, while leaving it to the second-gen products to start delivering on that. Think Thin Mac/Fat Mac, Apple I/Apple II, iPad/iPad 2.
Apple already have a speed differentiator; in my testing, FireWire 800 delivers over twice the throughput as USB 2. This is true both on Apple gear and on tests I've made using a "mainline" PC desktop with a dodgy Chinese FW800 PCIe card in it.
I'd love to see a real horse race develop in I/O technologies. I think one of the problems with the PC for the last several years has been the pervasive monoculture of USB 2, and training people to not expect more efficient/higher speed interfaces when there was dubious-at-best engineering rationale for not delivering them.
TB has its problems. (One display device? and if I want to change, I have to do *what*?) But so did USB 1.0, back in the day. Intel learned and did better, and I'm sure they will again. If not, Apple will find some other hardware partner who will. They've shown, more than once, great willingness to make major, shift-the-earth changes when progress wasn't as fast as they thought it should have been.
While it may be true, as Yogi said, that "the future ain't what it used to be," there's little reason to doubt that it's going to be very interesting.
The merits and utility of the interface don't matter.
It's a positioning game.
Intel chip-sets have an interface that will likely get massive co-op advertising.
Customers will see the port on some products.
Enter "fear uncertainty and doubt".
For $10USD more I get a feature I don't understand but has been getting a lot of advertising.
Many will make the "safe choice".
Apple needs something to differentiate themselves because the consumers are beginning to realize that they are other prodcuts offering the same functionality (or more) that are more accessible (price and useage). I just don't think this is much of an attraction.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.