If i may recap, as i see a point or two missing from this discussion:
- Intel originally conceives of a "Thunderbolt" protocol that is eventually said to be too expensive or difficult to implement.
- Intel being Intel doesn't let that stop it from making a quick buck or two, so they rebrand their now crippled protocol to Thunderbolt, finally launch it for the unwashed masses.
- Naturally, no one really uses it except Apple victims; sorry, i meant 'users'. But is it not trendy! Amagad is it not.
- When fully accepting that it's dead Jim, do they put it to pasture? Nope, they "release" it to an up to then agonising PC industry, just dying to implement it eeee-verywhere. Honestly.
- Intel being Intel, they have the audacity to inform of us of both their magnanimity (there, you peasants, take that) and their value to this market, as this is hardly the first time they try to fill it with junk, or worse still, suppress interesting, useful protocols only so as to enforce their own. Which are to be then discarded, but hey, who's counting.
So the obvious conclusions left unmentioned, i'm wondering if the nu-new TB controller's power consumption will be anyway near as high as it is now, if this will result to one (current, USB) or two controllers being embedded and whether the actual implementation requires lane bandwidth i'd rather see utilised elsewhere. Had anyone asked me that is..
Oh and whether, Intel being Intel, normal people like myself are in for a surprise or two because now they'll lock stuff out (sorry, the yuppie term is "exclusive" i believe) or make changes to stuff that worked perfectly fine with each and every USB device or function out there. Up to now that is.
Pride, honour and purity.