twoodcc
Aug 28, 11:49 PM
Anyone else voting that they drop the price on the BlackBook to match the white MB? What are the chances, eh?
that would be nice
that would be nice
Chris Bangle
Aug 31, 02:01 PM
Apple did this same thing before.Streaming it to London..If I recall it was the Front Row type invitation broadcast from a theatre..
Anybody remember that ?
Yeh it was the 5generation launch, they streamed it to the BBC centre i think, Sky News and BBC had the ipod as news article that night.
Anybody remember that ?
Yeh it was the 5generation launch, they streamed it to the BBC centre i think, Sky News and BBC had the ipod as news article that night.
Bernard SG
Apr 29, 03:10 AM
Is the global sales growth drop due to Windows? How many percent gain of the overall OS market has Apple gained with the 26% increase in Mac sales?
Windows representing AFAIK at least 90% of the worldwide installed base, the dip in PC demand is all linked to a drop of Windows PC demand.
Apple's global market share progressed by 1.4 point YoY to 4.6% in Q1 2011. In US figures, Mac market share progression is similar, 1.5 to 8.5%.
Those figures do not include iPad and other tablets and include netbooks.
And a little correction: Mac growth is actually 28%, not 26% as I wrote before.
Windows representing AFAIK at least 90% of the worldwide installed base, the dip in PC demand is all linked to a drop of Windows PC demand.
Apple's global market share progressed by 1.4 point YoY to 4.6% in Q1 2011. In US figures, Mac market share progression is similar, 1.5 to 8.5%.
Those figures do not include iPad and other tablets and include netbooks.
And a little correction: Mac growth is actually 28%, not 26% as I wrote before.
stockscalper
Mar 22, 01:13 PM
Another hot grill coming from Apple! This one will be big enough to fry steaks!
Macnoviz
Oct 13, 01:49 AM
Oh boy... the Catholic Church is WAY too easy of a target. We should probably leave that one alone.
I hope you people realise that not all people in the catholic church think about condoms and such the way the Vatican does.
I am a seminarian (priest in training so to speak) and do not think condoms should be forbidden.
Don't forget that the Catholic church is very open, as in the Evolution theory, Big Bang, not taking the bible as a science or history book.
Furhtermore, the pope has an iPod nano, and he saaid computer technology is the future.
I hope you people realise that not all people in the catholic church think about condoms and such the way the Vatican does.
I am a seminarian (priest in training so to speak) and do not think condoms should be forbidden.
Don't forget that the Catholic church is very open, as in the Evolution theory, Big Bang, not taking the bible as a science or history book.
Furhtermore, the pope has an iPod nano, and he saaid computer technology is the future.
headfuzz
Apr 4, 12:17 PM
The mall cop shot him? Really? The mall cop?!
I thought there was an app for that.
I thought there was an app for that.
Dagless
Oct 12, 06:04 PM
It's a rumour don't believe its!
Squire
Sep 1, 10:30 AM
I suspect we'll get ourselves all twisted 'bout this, tune in only to see iPod HiFi v 2.0 instead..
Good point. That's also what I'm "expecting" so I'm not disappointed. Actually, I'm not really in the market for anything that Apple has right now so a totally new product would be nice.
-Squire
Good point. That's also what I'm "expecting" so I'm not disappointed. Actually, I'm not really in the market for anything that Apple has right now so a totally new product would be nice.
-Squire
macman2790
Sep 5, 01:21 PM
I'm really hoping for merom in mbp's and mb's. The wait has been killing me.
LagunaSol
Apr 19, 09:23 AM
Salesperson: Sir, they're only vaguely the same shape.
And I don't think "vaguely" means what you think it means.
And I don't think "vaguely" means what you think it means.
IntelliUser
Jan 15, 05:33 PM
Do you run itunes or quicktime? Or possibly a web browser?
Neither iTunes nor QuickTime fit that description. None does any modern web browser (save for, arguably, Firefox).
Neither iTunes nor QuickTime fit that description. None does any modern web browser (save for, arguably, Firefox).
NutsNGum
Mar 22, 02:19 PM
I've been after a new iMac for a very long time.
Hopefully the screen consistency will be better than on previous iterations. I returned the last two I'd bought for dead pixels and big dark bar disorder.
Most irritating.:mad:
Hopefully the screen consistency will be better than on previous iterations. I returned the last two I'd bought for dead pixels and big dark bar disorder.
Most irritating.:mad:
pmz
Apr 22, 01:24 PM
The funny part is, no matter what Apple does to make this work, whether its really usable, or totally locked-in-worthless, it doesn't matter.
Streaming will never be as good as audio stored on your device. Not. Ever.
Not on 3G, not on 4G, and not even over WiFi. The software and streaming protocols are way too slow to offer even comparable performance.
I'll stick with syncing/file storage.
Streaming will never be as good as audio stored on your device. Not. Ever.
Not on 3G, not on 4G, and not even over WiFi. The software and streaming protocols are way too slow to offer even comparable performance.
I'll stick with syncing/file storage.
soapsuds
Sep 6, 01:09 AM
3 Mbps for a 720p movie? That's actually pretty close to a typical broadband download rate... neglecting the 2 GB storage requirements, all they would have to do is add the ability to watch a video as it is being downloaded (I'm pretty sure iTunes currently doesn't do that, which seems rather stupid, although the iTunes video player is also quite clunky) to make that feasible. I would still guess that they'll only do 640x480 or something like that, because it would be "good enough" for most people. If they stick to 320x240 for movies nobody will buy them.
If they can put the menu logic into iTunes, all the "Airport Express A/V" would have do do is add an H264 decoder chip and video DAC to the current Airport Express, that would be a pretty cheap solution. I think there is already a way to plug a remote control via USB into an Airport Express and remote-control iTunes. I don't see any reason why they couldn't fit this into something roughly the same cost as the current Airport Express ($130). Have iTunes for Windows handle simple movie and music playback, have the Mac version do a more full-featured FrontRow experience. Can most current Macs encode 640x480 into H264 or at least MP4 in real time to handle the UI? I suppose they could use a more quick & dirty compression technique for the UI, perhaps something that could take advantage of the large amounts of black background.
The only sticky part is the current AirportExpress is designed to sit on your powerstrip, where an IR receiver wouldn't work. So either you need a receiver on a cord, use an R/F remote instead of IR, or turn it into a "box with a cord" design more like a cable box.
If they can put the menu logic into iTunes, all the "Airport Express A/V" would have do do is add an H264 decoder chip and video DAC to the current Airport Express, that would be a pretty cheap solution. I think there is already a way to plug a remote control via USB into an Airport Express and remote-control iTunes. I don't see any reason why they couldn't fit this into something roughly the same cost as the current Airport Express ($130). Have iTunes for Windows handle simple movie and music playback, have the Mac version do a more full-featured FrontRow experience. Can most current Macs encode 640x480 into H264 or at least MP4 in real time to handle the UI? I suppose they could use a more quick & dirty compression technique for the UI, perhaps something that could take advantage of the large amounts of black background.
The only sticky part is the current AirportExpress is designed to sit on your powerstrip, where an IR receiver wouldn't work. So either you need a receiver on a cord, use an R/F remote instead of IR, or turn it into a "box with a cord" design more like a cable box.
dazzer21
May 3, 11:39 AM
Surely I'm not the only one who's noticed that the i7 is slower than the i5, and that the Radeon HD 6970M is slower than the 6750M.
Whaaaaa? :confused:
I'd seen that. Confused, also...
Whaaaaa? :confused:
I'd seen that. Confused, also...
Yamcha
Mar 29, 11:24 AM
no one uses windows phones....and for a good reason too...it sucks, it sucks, oh and it sucks....
I disagree, Windows Phone 7 is pretty impressive, now I probably wouldn't get it over a iPhone, but Windows Phone 7 would probably be my next choice, I'm not so much of a fan of Android phones.. And anyway you have to admit that Microsoft's approach is very different, which is what I like.. The Live tiles idea is really good..
I disagree, Windows Phone 7 is pretty impressive, now I probably wouldn't get it over a iPhone, but Windows Phone 7 would probably be my next choice, I'm not so much of a fan of Android phones.. And anyway you have to admit that Microsoft's approach is very different, which is what I like.. The Live tiles idea is really good..
HecubusPro
Sep 19, 04:27 PM
The average Joe is not the customer for iTV. Average Joe might buy a $40 DVD player from Walmart to hook up to a $200 TV. Remember, the iTV is meant for a HDTV. In fact you cannot even easily hook it up to a non-HDTV. It has only HDMI and component video outputs. These outputs are found only on HDTVs.
Actually, my old sony 27" CRT was a standard def TV and it had component inputs, and that was 5 years ago. Coupled with my sony progressive scan DVD player with component outputs, and was able to watch proper anamorphic video on my standard def TV. At that time that was the main selling point for me getting that TV. Searching around just now, I found quite a few standard def TV's that have component inputs.
Of course, I have an HDTV now, but for what it was, that 27" was a great tv with component inputs.
Actually, my old sony 27" CRT was a standard def TV and it had component inputs, and that was 5 years ago. Coupled with my sony progressive scan DVD player with component outputs, and was able to watch proper anamorphic video on my standard def TV. At that time that was the main selling point for me getting that TV. Searching around just now, I found quite a few standard def TV's that have component inputs.
Of course, I have an HDTV now, but for what it was, that 27" was a great tv with component inputs.
KnightWRX
Apr 20, 11:09 AM
Don't rely on encryption to protect you in any way. The police can crack it, as can hackers, and they can simply demand with a court order that you give them the password.
Depends on the cipher really. Not all ciphers can be decrypted with even the latest of the latest hardware, especially if you lack the private key. And a court order can force you all you want to give up that private key, but they can't force you to remember it or not lose it. ;)
"I don't remember" or "I lost the private key to my encrypted backup, but here's the AES-256 encrypted file guys, have a go at it" are perfectly good answers.
As for this topic, SLA/ToS whatever. Not everything written in a TOS is legal or binding. If they wrote you had to murder your 1st born child, would you ? Would a court find it legally binding ? Of course not. Invasions of privacy aside, is there even a reason to store the location information like that, timestamped and polled every second ?
Why can't the device poll my location when asked for it only ? Why does it need to do it periodically ? Why is there no cleaning up after a certain time has elapsed ?
All serious questions. Even if I don't have anything to hide my privacy is still important to me. If I want you to know about my mundane life with no frills, I'll tell you about it.
Depends on the cipher really. Not all ciphers can be decrypted with even the latest of the latest hardware, especially if you lack the private key. And a court order can force you all you want to give up that private key, but they can't force you to remember it or not lose it. ;)
"I don't remember" or "I lost the private key to my encrypted backup, but here's the AES-256 encrypted file guys, have a go at it" are perfectly good answers.
As for this topic, SLA/ToS whatever. Not everything written in a TOS is legal or binding. If they wrote you had to murder your 1st born child, would you ? Would a court find it legally binding ? Of course not. Invasions of privacy aside, is there even a reason to store the location information like that, timestamped and polled every second ?
Why can't the device poll my location when asked for it only ? Why does it need to do it periodically ? Why is there no cleaning up after a certain time has elapsed ?
All serious questions. Even if I don't have anything to hide my privacy is still important to me. If I want you to know about my mundane life with no frills, I'll tell you about it.
samiwas
Apr 20, 02:47 PM
The free market would suck if it were run in the way your brain imagines it. But imagine if you ran a company, and your chief goal is to make a profit. Having happy employees who are payed fairly and receive vacation days, benefits, etc, is definitely a better business model than working your employees like slaves.
OK, so why don't more businesses do that, instead of doing everything they can to "cut costs" to "generate higher profits"? Obviously, a business needs to make a profit. But instead of just making a profit, it seems that nowadays a business is not considered successful unless that business generates massive profits, or highly increased profits over the previous year. And if a business doesn't make as much as they thought they might (even though they've pulled in billions in profit), they are considered failed and their stock tumbles.
Honestly, I don't believe the "free market" that you or any Republican/Tea Partier/Libertarian believes in would work either, except for funneling even more dough to the top (which I actually think might be the way you want to see it, and thus believe would be successful). If you really believe that without some sort of regulation, all businesses would be spending MORE on their employees, you are hopeless.
Benefits shouldn't be government regulated. However, the slave labor that you describe should most certainly not be allowed, duh. Try cutting back on the straw man argument some.
My example may have been a little over the top, but let's not pretend for one second that plenty of employers out there would think nothing of asking their employees to come in on weekends or stay late nights with no extra compensation.
Benefits should have some sort of MINIMAL regulation. The US has pretty much the fewest benefits of any developed nation, and this is considered a good thing....because it benefits the business and not the worker.
It's humorous that when people imagine a free market, they ignore that in a free market, employers would be fighting for good employees as much as employees are fighting for the employers.
Wait...what?? Employers are currently not trying to get good employees? What does this even mean?
It's sad that the government is the largest charity, because it's just so darn inefficient. I have an idea. Private charity.
Somehow, I can't imagine a private charity large enough to take care of all of America's bottom class or replace existing "entitlement programs". The largest charity in the US is the United Way with $3.8billion in income. As for current government program expenses, even Tenant-based Rental Assistance is at $18.2billion, and that's just a single line item in a portion of one part of programs. I just cannot see how private charity could have the kind of reach that the government does. And I'm guessing that the people who do run the government programs make a little less than the $715,000 salary of the head of the United Way.
For all the bleeding heart liberals I've spoken with over the years, who want crazy amounts taxed in order to support social uplift programs, I never see any of them giving away 50+% of their income to charity. It's a lot easier to ask the government to give other peoples money to charity.
I can tell you right now that my family gives >50% of its total income.
However, if you think that taxes = charity, what incentive do you have to give? (to the organizations that are 90+% efficient rather than whatever the crap the government is)
So, AFTER paying 30% in federal and state income taxes, whatever percentage in sales and property tax, you are still able give away an additional 50% or more to charity? So you are able to live on like 3% of your earnings? I would LOVE to be in that position! It's very admirable, but hardly reachable for the average person. I try to give whenever I can, but I can admit that's it's usually around $2k a year.
Anyway, the topic is about the influx of low-wage, no-benefit jobs with no worker protections during times of high profitability and skyrocketing leadership pay. Some people actually see this as good. Some see it as bad. If you see this as a good thing, then we're at an impasse.
OK, so why don't more businesses do that, instead of doing everything they can to "cut costs" to "generate higher profits"? Obviously, a business needs to make a profit. But instead of just making a profit, it seems that nowadays a business is not considered successful unless that business generates massive profits, or highly increased profits over the previous year. And if a business doesn't make as much as they thought they might (even though they've pulled in billions in profit), they are considered failed and their stock tumbles.
Honestly, I don't believe the "free market" that you or any Republican/Tea Partier/Libertarian believes in would work either, except for funneling even more dough to the top (which I actually think might be the way you want to see it, and thus believe would be successful). If you really believe that without some sort of regulation, all businesses would be spending MORE on their employees, you are hopeless.
Benefits shouldn't be government regulated. However, the slave labor that you describe should most certainly not be allowed, duh. Try cutting back on the straw man argument some.
My example may have been a little over the top, but let's not pretend for one second that plenty of employers out there would think nothing of asking their employees to come in on weekends or stay late nights with no extra compensation.
Benefits should have some sort of MINIMAL regulation. The US has pretty much the fewest benefits of any developed nation, and this is considered a good thing....because it benefits the business and not the worker.
It's humorous that when people imagine a free market, they ignore that in a free market, employers would be fighting for good employees as much as employees are fighting for the employers.
Wait...what?? Employers are currently not trying to get good employees? What does this even mean?
It's sad that the government is the largest charity, because it's just so darn inefficient. I have an idea. Private charity.
Somehow, I can't imagine a private charity large enough to take care of all of America's bottom class or replace existing "entitlement programs". The largest charity in the US is the United Way with $3.8billion in income. As for current government program expenses, even Tenant-based Rental Assistance is at $18.2billion, and that's just a single line item in a portion of one part of programs. I just cannot see how private charity could have the kind of reach that the government does. And I'm guessing that the people who do run the government programs make a little less than the $715,000 salary of the head of the United Way.
For all the bleeding heart liberals I've spoken with over the years, who want crazy amounts taxed in order to support social uplift programs, I never see any of them giving away 50+% of their income to charity. It's a lot easier to ask the government to give other peoples money to charity.
I can tell you right now that my family gives >50% of its total income.
However, if you think that taxes = charity, what incentive do you have to give? (to the organizations that are 90+% efficient rather than whatever the crap the government is)
So, AFTER paying 30% in federal and state income taxes, whatever percentage in sales and property tax, you are still able give away an additional 50% or more to charity? So you are able to live on like 3% of your earnings? I would LOVE to be in that position! It's very admirable, but hardly reachable for the average person. I try to give whenever I can, but I can admit that's it's usually around $2k a year.
Anyway, the topic is about the influx of low-wage, no-benefit jobs with no worker protections during times of high profitability and skyrocketing leadership pay. Some people actually see this as good. Some see it as bad. If you see this as a good thing, then we're at an impasse.
yg17
Apr 25, 10:01 AM
He's definitely lying about some stuff
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=7705428&postcount=15
How true, and she would have deserved to get it keyed. Why can't my mom or dad be a rich lawyer or doctor or something like that?
In less than 3 years, your mom went to law school, passed the bar exam, and became the top attorney in the biggest law firm in your state? Impressive.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=10945954&postcount=40
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=7705428&postcount=15
How true, and she would have deserved to get it keyed. Why can't my mom or dad be a rich lawyer or doctor or something like that?
In less than 3 years, your mom went to law school, passed the bar exam, and became the top attorney in the biggest law firm in your state? Impressive.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=10945954&postcount=40
apnewb
Mar 23, 09:26 AM
A 24" TOUCH SCREEN would be a great addition???
Peace
Aug 31, 04:44 PM
Well if they do the announcement late on Monday 12 in Cupertino that will be Tuesday in Paris (time zone difference is +9) so will comply with the tradition LOL :rolleyes: :p :D
Sept. 12th is a Tuesday in Cupertino.
Sept. 12th is a Tuesday in Cupertino.
Compile 'em all
Nov 14, 10:29 AM
I'm just a regular iPhone user...not a developer. I just want my phone work. And I want the apps to be fully vetted and tested before they are available for download. RA's action doesn't make me dislike the iPhone, Mac computers, or Apple. In fact, quite the opposite. It makes RA look childish. I say...good riddance.
HOW IS IT A GOOD THING FOR THE CONSUMER THAT THEY STOP DEVELOPING APPS FOR THE IPHONE?
Did you even bother reading the goddamn article? Apple rejected the app because RA implemented the displaying of the remote device in the exact same way Apple does in their remote App!
HOW IS IT A GOOD THING FOR THE CONSUMER THAT THEY STOP DEVELOPING APPS FOR THE IPHONE?
Did you even bother reading the goddamn article? Apple rejected the app because RA implemented the displaying of the remote device in the exact same way Apple does in their remote App!
aiqw9182
Apr 16, 10:27 AM
Yes because everyone loves to carry around external breakout boxes with their sleek portable Macbooks.... :rolleyes:
And $10? For Thunderbolt? You are DREAMING. You can't even get a decent USB2 hub for $10.
Yeah because everyone loves to carry around an external hard drive with their sleek portable MacBooks. :rolleyes:
God forbid you carry around an inch long adapter in your laptop bag. Is that too much for you?
Oh and here's some adapter prices for you:
http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10428&cs_id=1042802&p_id=5311
http://www.monoprice.com/products/subdepartment.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10404
Twice the performance of USB3? That would be Thunderbolt's maximum possible data rate. No single consumer hard drive on earth supports that kind of speed (let alone even USB3's top speed) so I haven't a clue what you're getting at. Why would someone pay MORE to get a drive that is no faster than a USB3 drive? LOL, are you kidding me bro? Do you think USB 3 peaks out at it's max 5 Gbps? YOU are the one dreaming if you believe that. Here's some more evidence for your FUD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCz_c_rDAXw
USB 3 would completely choke in that situation let alone in a simply hard drive speed comparison. Give me a break. Here's another example for you to look at for some REAL WORLD USB 3 speeds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrtwtSjzjZI
In reality with USB 3 you get about 480 Megabits as opposed to the promised 5 Gpbs meaning Thunderbolt will be even faster than two times.
They would almost certainly have to as demand determines price/availability and there is nearly zero demand for TB devices at this point in time while USB3 are backwards compatible with the vast majority of the computers on the planet. My sales figures are based on the relative cost of drives with Firewire interfaces (the closest example that already exists to Thunderbolt in terms of technology versus low demand) against drives that only support USB2 and/or USB3. There is always a large premium for a drive with a FW interface, even today when a fair amount of computers exist with FW interfaces (i.e. SOME demand). So you are just ASSUMING that they will cost $250 more than USB 3 drives. OK, let's make that clear. You have no evidence to support that your $250 price difference has any validity other than the fact that FireWire drives were more expensive when it's already been explained twice and back why Thunderbolt won't be as 'exclusive' as FireWire. It's going to be on every Ivy Bridge chipset just like USB 3.0 is. Everyone's going to be using it, it's another checkmark for them to list. Why do you think PC manufactures still sell machines with eSata?
Therefore TB compatible drives will likely cost considerably more money than USB3 drives for the SAME underlying drive. You will pay a premium for the interface just like Firewire to offset the higher costs of low production numbers created by little demand compared to USB3/2 interfaces. There will be no speed advantage on a consumer drive because no consumer drive even comes CLOSE to the limits of either interface. So unlike YOUR $10 scenario, I didn't just make a number up out of thin air. Furthermore, the scenario is hardly half-baked given USB drives are already common at places like Best Buy (I personally already own TWO 3TB USB3 drives) so the unlikely 'friend' in the stated scenario would be more likely to already own a USB3 drive than a currently non-existent TB drive that will undoubtedly cost MORE when it does finally arrive.LOL, words can't describe how wrong you are. You think HDD speeds cap out at 480 Mbps? Maybe in your 'practical world' where you enjoy using inferior technology because it's 'what you're used to' that's the case. But for everyone else Thunderbolt will be a massive performance gain. Let alone when external SSD's really start hitting the market. USB 3 will really be proven for the piece of trash that it is and get wasted on all bandwidth comparisons. USB 3 is capped at a theoretical transfer rate of 5 Gbps. Thunderbolt is currently at 10 Gbps and can scale up to 100 Gbps in the future.
TB is more suited to high-end professional use where maximum overall data throughput (probably across multiple banks of drives per interface) and low overhead is desired (e.g. professional video, future high-speed server banks, live audio, etc.) The average consumer doesn't want to pay $50-100 more for FW800 drive interface over USB2 today (nor is their computer even likely to have FW if it's not a Mac) even if does have a benefit over USB2. They certainly aren't going to want to pay a potentially larger premium to get the same relative performance (perhaps with a bit of CPU overhead differences) versus USB3 with today's drives that don't come near USB3 levels, let alone Thunderbolt.Same relative performance? LMAO
Thunderbolt is suited for the future of high data transfer speeds that SSD's are capable of. Who wants the bottleneck to be the port on their computer? Because that's all USB 3 is going to be.
Be my guest and continue to insult and rant and dream big of TB heaven where USB doesn't exist. I live in a more practical and logical world.
Your 'practical world' when you were just talking about how no one will pay a premium for USB 3. Well the reason why no one's going to pay a premium for USB 3 is because it's a garbage update over USB 2.0. Thunderbolt will scale to the future. USB 3 is going to be trapped in limbo no matter what new peripherals come out down the road and given that it took them 8 years to release it a couple of years down the road when Thunderbolt is scaling even faster than USB 3. The only thing USB 3 is going to be used for down the road is nothing that USB 2 couldn't handle.
And $10? For Thunderbolt? You are DREAMING. You can't even get a decent USB2 hub for $10.
Yeah because everyone loves to carry around an external hard drive with their sleek portable MacBooks. :rolleyes:
God forbid you carry around an inch long adapter in your laptop bag. Is that too much for you?
Oh and here's some adapter prices for you:
http://www.monoprice.com/products/product.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10428&cs_id=1042802&p_id=5311
http://www.monoprice.com/products/subdepartment.asp?c_id=104&cp_id=10404
Twice the performance of USB3? That would be Thunderbolt's maximum possible data rate. No single consumer hard drive on earth supports that kind of speed (let alone even USB3's top speed) so I haven't a clue what you're getting at. Why would someone pay MORE to get a drive that is no faster than a USB3 drive? LOL, are you kidding me bro? Do you think USB 3 peaks out at it's max 5 Gbps? YOU are the one dreaming if you believe that. Here's some more evidence for your FUD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCz_c_rDAXw
USB 3 would completely choke in that situation let alone in a simply hard drive speed comparison. Give me a break. Here's another example for you to look at for some REAL WORLD USB 3 speeds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrtwtSjzjZI
In reality with USB 3 you get about 480 Megabits as opposed to the promised 5 Gpbs meaning Thunderbolt will be even faster than two times.
They would almost certainly have to as demand determines price/availability and there is nearly zero demand for TB devices at this point in time while USB3 are backwards compatible with the vast majority of the computers on the planet. My sales figures are based on the relative cost of drives with Firewire interfaces (the closest example that already exists to Thunderbolt in terms of technology versus low demand) against drives that only support USB2 and/or USB3. There is always a large premium for a drive with a FW interface, even today when a fair amount of computers exist with FW interfaces (i.e. SOME demand). So you are just ASSUMING that they will cost $250 more than USB 3 drives. OK, let's make that clear. You have no evidence to support that your $250 price difference has any validity other than the fact that FireWire drives were more expensive when it's already been explained twice and back why Thunderbolt won't be as 'exclusive' as FireWire. It's going to be on every Ivy Bridge chipset just like USB 3.0 is. Everyone's going to be using it, it's another checkmark for them to list. Why do you think PC manufactures still sell machines with eSata?
Therefore TB compatible drives will likely cost considerably more money than USB3 drives for the SAME underlying drive. You will pay a premium for the interface just like Firewire to offset the higher costs of low production numbers created by little demand compared to USB3/2 interfaces. There will be no speed advantage on a consumer drive because no consumer drive even comes CLOSE to the limits of either interface. So unlike YOUR $10 scenario, I didn't just make a number up out of thin air. Furthermore, the scenario is hardly half-baked given USB drives are already common at places like Best Buy (I personally already own TWO 3TB USB3 drives) so the unlikely 'friend' in the stated scenario would be more likely to already own a USB3 drive than a currently non-existent TB drive that will undoubtedly cost MORE when it does finally arrive.LOL, words can't describe how wrong you are. You think HDD speeds cap out at 480 Mbps? Maybe in your 'practical world' where you enjoy using inferior technology because it's 'what you're used to' that's the case. But for everyone else Thunderbolt will be a massive performance gain. Let alone when external SSD's really start hitting the market. USB 3 will really be proven for the piece of trash that it is and get wasted on all bandwidth comparisons. USB 3 is capped at a theoretical transfer rate of 5 Gbps. Thunderbolt is currently at 10 Gbps and can scale up to 100 Gbps in the future.
TB is more suited to high-end professional use where maximum overall data throughput (probably across multiple banks of drives per interface) and low overhead is desired (e.g. professional video, future high-speed server banks, live audio, etc.) The average consumer doesn't want to pay $50-100 more for FW800 drive interface over USB2 today (nor is their computer even likely to have FW if it's not a Mac) even if does have a benefit over USB2. They certainly aren't going to want to pay a potentially larger premium to get the same relative performance (perhaps with a bit of CPU overhead differences) versus USB3 with today's drives that don't come near USB3 levels, let alone Thunderbolt.Same relative performance? LMAO
Thunderbolt is suited for the future of high data transfer speeds that SSD's are capable of. Who wants the bottleneck to be the port on their computer? Because that's all USB 3 is going to be.
Be my guest and continue to insult and rant and dream big of TB heaven where USB doesn't exist. I live in a more practical and logical world.
Your 'practical world' when you were just talking about how no one will pay a premium for USB 3. Well the reason why no one's going to pay a premium for USB 3 is because it's a garbage update over USB 2.0. Thunderbolt will scale to the future. USB 3 is going to be trapped in limbo no matter what new peripherals come out down the road and given that it took them 8 years to release it a couple of years down the road when Thunderbolt is scaling even faster than USB 3. The only thing USB 3 is going to be used for down the road is nothing that USB 2 couldn't handle.
