Thunderbolt was Dead on Arrival
Quinn Nelson
Let me be clear. I'm not here to undermine the capabilities nor technology behind Thunderbolt as it's certainly the best I/O method on the market; however, I can't help but criticize the technology and it's lack of success.
Thunderbolt has been on the market for just over a year. Unveiled at Apple's January 2011 MacBook Pro keynote, Thunderbolt technology promised to bring the "fastest and most versatile I/O ever." While this is accurate from a technical standpoint, we have to take a look into the past at Apple's failures: trying to create an I/O that is widely adopted.
Let's jump back to the year 1999. Apple had re-branded the infamous IEEE 1394 interface as FireWire. This technology was groundbreaking because it had the power to transfer files at up to 400 MB/s (while it only truly transferred about 49 MB/s)—a stark improvement on the unreleased USB 2.0 technology which technically could carry up to 480 MB/s, but was really only achieving about 10-13 MB/s. Because of FireWire's raw power, much of the A/V industry began to move cameras and other media devices to this technology, but one specific limitation, price, prevented it from overthrowing USB.
Apple wanted money. The near-bankrupt company was charging a $1-2 royalty for every FireWire 400 port. While this royalty charge was eventually abolished in 2001, it was done too late. USB 2.0 had just about every advantage. Technically, the open-standard was just as capable having had legacy support for USB 1.1 devices which had already taken the market with storm. Not to mention it was open. No royalties. Over a few years, even Apple began to lose interest in FireWire and moved over to the more universally accepted USB.
Before I get into failed market strategy, I want to mention the actual hardware limitations of the Thunderbolt I/O technology. Unlike USB, Thunderbolt doesn't have 1 central controller. USB can handle 127 devices per controller whereas Thunderbolt can only handle one. Technically, this isn't much of a problem, but cost really takes a sucker-punch here. While it may not be a big deal to add multiple controllers on laptops with a gargantuan price tag, on a $200 tablet, this is seemingly less feasible.
What Apple advertises to be Thunderbolt's greatest strength, I see as the biggest weakness. Daisychaining. The theory is simple. Hook up a hard drive, game controller, display, and sync cable up to your computer all from one port without noticing a loss in bandwidth. In order to daisychain, all devices require two Thunderbolt ports. One input. One output. This will certainly drive the cost of the device up exponentially. Did I mention troubleshooting? Something stops working. Is it the cable? Bus? What if your first device's output goes out and every other daisychained device stops working? Yeah, so you can mix and match the cables or move devices around, but this isn't always very easy reaching behind your desk through the slew of cables to find out what isn't working correctly.
Let's talk marketshare. Apple is still in single digits. Now that's nothing to mock, but less than 10% of computers are Macs. Do you really think a 10% demographic can change the input/output technology of the other 90%? Face the facts: PC manufacturers control the market, and with the exception of Sony, there has been zero interest in Thunderbolt technology from big PC conglomerates. Additionally, PC manufacturers have already embraced and adopted USB 3.0. Back in '99, Apple had the advantage of releasing FireWire before USB 2.0. The successor to USB 2.0 has already been on the market for nearly two years, and hundreds of computers come stock with USB 3.0. Oh, and mark my words... Apple will have USB 3.0 in their 2012 computer lineup. USB 3.0 cables, despite their 50% slower transfer rate still haul butt—they're well fast enough for most individuals, and as PC manufacturers have already embraced USB 3.0, there is no room or need for an expensive, proprietary technology. A Thunderbolt cable costs $50 from Apple. For one cable. USB 3.0? There are hundreds of cables from dozens of manufacturers starting at $1. Yes, obviously part of the lack of expense is due to market adoption which Thunderbolt has yet to receive, but I'll be surprised if the technology can be dropped to that low of a price even with adoption due to complex components located in the cables themselves.
Last, look at the evidence. It's been 13 months since Apple announced and shipped their first Thunderbolt enabled computers. There are exactly 9 Thunderbolt devices that can be purchased today. 9! Many of which are 200%-300% more than the USB counterparts, and are cluttered with bugs and problems.
I'm not trying to be a downer. I think Thunderbolt is an amazing technology that far supersedes USB 3.0 in power and size; however, Apple screwed the pooch. They were too late into the game, and USB 3.0 has the monetization, legacy, backwards compatibility, market adoption, and development. Thunderbolt was dead before it was born.
Reader Comments (7)
Doesn't Apple have closer to 15-20% PC marketshare? I believe I've heard numbers between 12%-30%. 30% including iPad's. USB 3.0 hasn't really taken off either. Not like previous versions of USB did. This is because more people used desktops back in the day, and they could easily upgrade. Now notebooks are far more popular, and they aren't nearly as upgradeable.
@tyler simpson
USB 3.0 HAS taken off. Every single motherboard you can buy comes with USB 3.0 now. Almost every external system, such as hard drives or optical drives, now use USB 3.0. Nearly every notebook has USB 3.0, and certainly every high-performance notebook comes with it. Apple's 2011 share of PCs is 10.1%, and globally they have less than 5%. Hearsay doesn't do much in this industry. Do some research.
I don't think Apple would've devoted resources to this if they didn't have some sort of long term plan. No matter how fast our internet is, we're always going to need a network agnostic I/O port. I'm thinking iOS integration of Thunderbolt is what will jumpstart this technology into the mainstream consumer market.
@Miguel Cervantez From what I've seen, many computers use it, but you still don't see all that many USB devices adopting it. Some external HDD's, but not much more. I did research, and found the lowest number for Q4 2011 was 11.8%, and the highest was around 28% (I'm starting to forget, I looked it up several hours now). Anyway, even 10.1% is larger then what Snazzy claimed.
Nice article Quinn. I am PC user but I like to keep up with Apple. When I first saw the description of the Thunderbolt port on their site I was amazed. I still am because like you say, the technology is great but USB makes more sense and while 3.0 may be slower, its fast enough for most and eventually there will be 4.0. I always wondered why every mac came with firewire until I read that Apple developed it. I wonder if there is still a great demand for the port from new/legacy devices or does Apple put it on every mac because they developed it and can't let it go. Either way, they still make a great product.
Didnt read it past the first paragraph, thunderbolt is coming out on a bunch of non apple motherboards, so yeah...
Raw numbers is not the measure of success. Firewire was adopted as the defacto standard for high end, professional video editing and multi-media over USB because it's better and faster. It also happens to be what many people do with their Mac professionally. USB is host based, meaning high speed sustained transfers unnecessarily stress the host computer, and require more of it's attention than Firewire. Peer to peer makes so much more sense and works better for sustained, high speed data transfers, which is why it was adopted for professional high end video editing. Google can give away Android to millions if they want, but success is not about raw number of people using, but does it work good, are your customers happy, and are you making money. From that standpoint I'd hardly call Apple's tech a failure.
USB3 has been out way longer than Firewire, and I'd say things have been slow as far as a multitude of affordable devices and PCs having USB3, so since Thunderbolt is just barely getting released to the masses, calling it a failure is a bit premature. I was just wondering if USB3 was DOA as it's been out so long and it seems like manufacturers that dabbled with supporting it are going back to USB2 on standard models. USB3 is still host based, so it can never be as fast as Thunderbolt apples to apples. The current peer to peer technology will always be better but slightly more expensive than the current host based for sustained high speed transfer by its very nature, assuming they both evolve together.