This is incorrect, Intel only just started to integrate USB 3 onto their chipsets this year (2012). Apple depends on Intel for both processors and chipsets. Thus, Intel's delay in including USB 3 was probably the main reason why Apple had to delay the inclusion of USB 3.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Top of the line current gen vs Upcoming Mac Mini
- Thread starter Engali
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This is incorrect, Intel only just started to integrate USB 3 onto their chipsets this year (2012). Apple depends on Intel for both processors and chipsets. Thus, Intel's delay in including USB 3 was probably the main reason why Apple had to delay the inclusion of USB 3.
Current- gen mini (2011) will drop to $519 and 2010 gen units will move to $469 .. unless apple raises or lowers 2012 unit prices...
Current gen is already at $519 and I haven't seen a 2010 model in the refurb store in forever.
Wait.
You'll get higher spec for the same price - and they must be due any day now. The mini is well overdue for an update.
You'll get higher spec for the same price - and they must be due any day now. The mini is well overdue for an update.
Thats why I posted it.
Manufacturers don't need permission from intel to install something on their motherboards. There is absolutely nothing keeping Apple from installing USB3 the day it was released.
That is incorrect.
Intel delayed direct USB3 support so it wouldn't compete with and decimate Thunderbolt.
Last edited:
When?
Any ideas as to when the next generation Mini's will be announced? I know that Apple are the only people who know for certain, but when is the next Apple event, where an update could be announced?
Any ideas as to when the next generation Mini's will be announced? I know that Apple are the only people who know for certain, but when is the next Apple event, where an update could be announced?
Apple didn't include it due to cost, since it prefers to include features directly supported by Intel's chipset or if it's something special, like TB.
I wonder why people jump to this conlusion? Do you have proof to support your opinions?
Inclusion of USB 3 had nothing to do with Thunderbolt. TB is not a competitor to USB in any shape or form. USB and TB are not competitors. Are you going to use TB to connect mice and keyboards? In fact, Intel wanted to use USB ports for TB and the USB body said no. So then they partnered with Apple and used the miniDP port.
That is factual information, not based on the opinion of bloggers.
********.
They still include Firewire on the Mini and iMac. Eliminating that would save the hardware cost to support USB3 two times over, and like the laptops nobody would miss it given how fast and cheap USB is. Thunderbolt isn't exactly "cheap" either.
USB 3.0 PCI cards have cost about $30 since it was first released, $10-20 premium over USB 2.0 cards. Since Apple makes minimum $400 profit on each machine, please attempt to make a valid argument as to why they have not updated to modern technology since cost is such an absurd base for an argument about premium computers.
Simple, Intel delayed USB3 support directly because of Thunderbolt.
They claim it doesn't compete with it, but only a fool would think that. Unless you're using high-end RAID devices, real-world speeds between TB and USB3 with a single hard drive or SSD are identical, yet USB3 adds very little to the device cost while TB adds $50 just for a friggn' cable.
See the above statement.
See the above statement.
How about Gigabit Ethernet? Hard Drives? Port duplicators? TV Tuners? Music keyboards?
Thats because it would be directly competing, conflict of interest.
That is false information, your views are solely your opinions, not anything based on data.
The simple fact is TB and USB3 are direct competitors just as FireWire and USB2 were. Reality will show the exact same results again: A few high end devices for TB with spotty support and acceptance while USB3 will easily take the mass market and dominate TB just as it did FW. (Remember that FW800 was twice as fast as USB2, just like TB is twice as fast as USB3.)
In the end, TB will end up exactly like NuBus, SCSI, ADC, FireWire, PowerPC and mini-DisplayPort: Oddball legacy hardware almost entirely limited to use on Apple computers overtaken almost immediately by slightly inferior but drastically cheaper mass-market alternatives, and Apple will eventually fall into line and support them, dragging their feet every step of the way.
Last edited by a moderator:
This does not excite me as much as it does you and I could respond to each of your ridiculous statements, but I just don't feel like it right now. I am curious though, what data you're presenting? Is it hidden somewhere in your posts using white text? You have not presented any data at all and are posting YOUR OPINIONS (see, I can bold too) and are expecting people to take YOUR OPINIONS AS FACTS. I have posted FACTS. IT IS A FACT THAT INTEL WANTED TO USE THE USB PORT FOR THUNDERBOLT. You haven't posted a single fact. Show me your facts. Put your money where your mouth is.
I am not sure why you think your opinions count as facts and therefore are better opinions that others' opinions, even when they bring facts to the table. It must be fun living in your world. Good luck.
Thats fine, people always run off when they can't win a debate.
That is false information.
My facts are based directly on history and market trends.
Sorry, that is false information, opinions are not facts.
And they were denied because its a direct competitor. What do you think would happen if AMD asked Intel if they could design their processors to fit in Intel's sockets?
AMD and Intel: Both make CPUs
TB and USB3: Both are high-speed external expansion serial ports
Facts have nothing to do with "luck".
Thunderbolt is far superior to USB3.
USB3 5 gb/s
TB 10gb/s per channel (will multiple channels).
Sure thunderbolt is expensive now, but it will come down. And will optical variants coming soon, there will be huge benefits for long distance transmission.
USB3 cannot do everything thunderbolt can. It is not all about speed.
USB3 is not going anywhere, and I dont think thunderbolt is either.
I doubt you will be running two high res displays off of USB3.
And USB4 is not coming out any time soon.
FW400 > USB1.1
FW800 > USB2.0
TB > USB3
The winner is highlighted. See a trend there? USB3 will take over and TB will become a seldom used, expensive, legacy port. Just like Firewire.
Parroting everything said about FireWire.
Parroting everything said about FireWire.
FW can run 14.5 feet, USB 3 feet.
Parroting everything said about FireWire.
I've said it a dozen times now, what you've said doesn't matter at all. Consumers care about cost, not features. If that weren't the case then Apple wouldn't need the Mini, MacBook Air or iMac, they would just need to offer MacPros and MacBook Pros.
Parroting everything said about FireWire.
Its already done with USB2 years ago.
Here is a 24" 1080p display using USB3, powered entirely by a single USB cable.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/06/asus-ms248b-24-inch-display-does-it-all-with-one-cable-thank-yo/
You still haven't posted any facts and are claiming "I Win"? I am still waiting for your facts.
The FW argument has very little to do with why USB 3 was not included due to the chipset. Apple include FW because it's their technology and feel obliged to support it. Only a fool would not be able to understand this and try to correlate it to their argument of why Apple did not include USB 3 as an extra controller.
Maybe I am going about this the wrong way... do you know the difference between a fact and an opinion? To claim that Intel delayed USB 3 inclusion in their chipset is an opinion, since you have nothing to back up that statement.
Ditto
How about it?
Youre mixing up facts and opinions again.
Ditto.
You have not based ANYTHING on data.
They are clearly posted. I don't see you posting links to anything that backs up your "facts".
Actually it has everything to do with it. Its one of the primary reasons Apple delayed stepping up to USB2 for nearly a year after its release.
They didn't use Intel chipsets back then, so that aspect of your argument is invalid as well.
No they don't.
They weren't "obliged" to support NuBus for several years when they switched to PCI.
They weren't "obliged" to support ADB for several years when they switched to USB.
They weren't "obliged" to support ADC for several years when they switched to DVI.
Next argument.
Then why don't you understand?
That is correct information.
Actually its a statement of fact.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/04/nvidia-confirms-intel-chipsets-wont-support-usb-3-0-until-2011/
See the above link that shows factual information.
Where are your links? I see none yet I have posted two now.
That is false information.
That is false information.
I haven't based just anything on data, EVERYTHING I posted is based on real-world facts.
That story does not support your claims that Intel delayed USB 3 for Thunderbolt. It's the story of the little battle that was occurring at the time between Nvidia and Intel.
This story actually makes no sense, apart from Nvidia crying out loud. Why the hell would Intel want to share anything with their competitors? USB does not belong to Intel. How could Intel possibly be withholding USB 3 specs? The USB body governs the specifications, not Intel.
Try again.
Would you mind providing an online reference regarding Apple's profit margins on individual Macs?
FW400 and FW800 are proprietary apple buses. Hardly a logical comparison.
Thunderbolt is Intel. Can be found on PC motherboards as well.
Thunderbolt over optical can go 330 feet. We are not talking about 3-15 feet here.
Yes cost is obviously a concern for every consumer. The price is high due to the fact that it is new and superior. The price will go down when move products are sold with it, and when manufacturing ramps up. For example, right now the cables contain like 5 IC's, which is why they are so expensive. They are combining the chips and making them smaller, and eventually they will drop in price as well. Only a matter of time.
That is via DisplayLink. So essentially you are just using the USB bus to deliver highly compressed data to the DisplayLink adapter which contains a tiny GPU. This gives you high CPU usage and poor performance. Hardly the same thing as using your dedicated GPU as a video output.
I am using one right now. It is great for coding and web browsing, nothing more.
Thunderbold can be found on PC motherboards, but USB3 is found on PC motherboards.
I get your point, but I do agree USB3 will be the overall winner in popularity.
Actually it does. Try again.
Thats why they are competitors.
Thats why Intel and Apple chose not to support the latest specs, its direct competition to their proprietary ports.
Please do.
Have you ever seen one of the dozen or so component breakdowns? Google "UBM TechInsights Apple"
So? Fords engines are proprietary to them, does that not make them competition to GM's cars?
As can FireWire. Try again.
Actually it can't, no such product exists yet so such claims are merely that, claims. Remember Apple's claim the G5 was capable of scaling to 3.0Ghz within a year of launch?
Again, parroting everything said about FireWire. So far, 90% of whats available for TB costs more than $500. The only things less are the $50 cable, $30 Ethernet adapter, $30 display adapters and some $200-400 port replicators.
Try again.
That is false information.
"The 24-inch ASUS MS248B is brought to life with a single cable courtesy of USB 3.0's extra current and bandwidth."
Nobody ever said it was practical or a good solution, you simply asked "I doubt you will be running two high res displays off of USB3."
Try again.