[Chris Kenny]

[Chris Harlan] “As I have already said, because the Transport Layer is above the Physical Layer, and the Physical Layer seems to have requirements that might open it up for switching but not for hubing. Do you understand layer abstraction and how each layer is subjugated to the properties of the layer below it? “

I understand that the transport layer is built on top of the physical layer, but there is no reason to believe the physical layer fundamentally lacks support for tree/star topologies, and given that the Thunderbolt physical layer is the only physical layer on which the Thunderbolt transport layer is implemented, it would be utterly bizarre for Intel to note that the latter supported tree/star topologies if the former didn’t. For instance, Intel also mentions that the transport layer supports “A novel time synchronization protocol that allows all the Thunderbolt products connected in a domain to synchronize their time within 8ns of each other”. Would you argue that maybe Thunderbolt doesn’t really support synchronization to within 8ns, because it isn’t explicitly stated that the physical layer has sufficient performance to enable this?

—
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.

[Chris Kenny]

[Andrew Kimery] “Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, but a digital bookstore and the iPad as an eReader was part of the plan all along, IMO. Even when Jobs gave that interview panning eReaders and digital book stores I bet he knew Apple would have a digital bookstore and a key selling point of the iPad would be as an eReader.”

Panning a device that’s only an eReader was justifiable, given the relative sales numbers for books/songs/apps. That doesn’t mean books weren’t worth eventually supporting on a multifunction device.

[Andrew Kimery] “I mean, Apple had OSX running on intel chips for years before they made the switch from PPC and I bet they have contingency plans up the wazoo. I think Apple is a very prepared, methodical company that has far flung product road maps, they just don’t give any hint of what’s on those road maps to anyone but the most senior staff at Apple.”

Yes, this is almost certainly true.

—
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.

[Chris Kenny]

[Chris Harlan] “No. I’m not. I’m saying that you are quite possibly misunderstanding that reference.”

But you can’t seem to explain how. What exactly is your interpretation of Intel’s statement that Thunderbolt’s transport layer supports tree/star topologies? The transport layer lives below the layer of the multiplexed PCIe Thunderbolt supports, which puts it two levels down from the kind of multi-interface ‘hubs’ you’re claiming are all Thunderbolt can support.

[Chris Harlan] “Let me as you this, Chris–since you are so obstinate about such things–after a full year of availability, when a hub would be the easiest, most convenient solution for a majority of Thunderbolt users (instead of a daisy chain with all of its organizational limitations), why doesn’t one exist? Why hasn’t one been announced? It were possible, or at least easily achievable, why isn’t anyone marketing what would be THE most obvious peripheral?”

I’ve already addressed this. Hubs are possible on FireWire, but very rarely used. Daisy chaining is sufficient for most users’ needs. Given Thunderbolt’s similar use cases, why would you expect a type of peripheral that has been so unpopular in the FireWire world to be a top priority for vendors in the Thunderbolt world?

It’s also possible (probable, now that I think about it) that while the Thunderbolt protocol supports hubs, a hub isn’t something that can be constructed from the Thunderbolt controllers Intel currently has on the market. By way of rough analogy, the hardware needed to build an ethernet switch is different from the hardware needed to build an ethernet NIC. So hubs may have to wait for new Intel hardware, or for Intel to start licensing third-parties to build Thunderbolt ICs.

—
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.

[Chris Kenny]

[Chris Harlan] “The one thing I know you are mistaken about in the above paragraph is “PCIe is just one protocol that can be multiplexed over it.” PCIe and DisplayPort are the ONLY two bus level protocols muxed by Thunderbolt at that abstraction layer.”

Um, yes, I know. How does this make me “mistaken”? PCIe is only one of the protocols that can be multiplexed over Thunderbolt. There’s one other protocol that has that status now, and hypothetically there could be more in the future (though PCIe is pretty general purpose, and multiplexing more protocols would require more complex cross-connects in the host system, so it might not be worth the trouble).

In any event, PCIe’s ability to handle star/tree topologies wouldn’t matter even if it were the only protocol that could be multiplexed over Thunderbolt — the abstraction provided by Thunderbolt would still allow for topologies PCIe didn’t support. (And, again, PCIe actually does support star topologies, so even if Thunderbolt literally were just external PCIe hubs would be possible.)

[Chris Harlan] ” I’ve found many references to hubs or potential hubs for upper level protocols, but NONE for anything at that level.”

Because you’re ignoring a clear reference saying Thunderbolt supports tree/star topologies. Again, look at the PDF I linked to. This is clearly labeled as a transport layer feature. It’s true that nobody has announced a product yet, but hub products weren’t very common for FireWire either — most people’s needs are met by daisy chaining (with technologies that support it), so hubs tend to be rare.

[Chris Harlan] “Notice the focus on the daisy chain as the mode of connection.”

Doesn’t mean very much. FireWire absolutely supports hubs (there were a few on the market), but they were rarely used, and a brief overview of how the technology worked might well ignore the possibility.

—
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.

[Chris Kenny]

[Jules bowman] “Ah, the right speaks”

Haha. No.

[Jules bowman] “Nope. It’s still all wrong, sorry. And Foxconn pay above average do they. Well, let’s look at the context. Is the average a fair rate? Doubt it.”

Define “fair”. Seriously, this isn’t a flippant question. It’s the entire issue on which this debate hinges.

—
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.

[Chris Kenny]

[Craig Shields] “Unfortunately, this is how businesses are. They don’t care that workers aren’t making a living wage. They don’t care that workers are committing suicide. It’s all about the profits. I have no doubt that Apple would use 10 year old children in those factories if it was legal and could save them some money.”

Foxconn plants manufacturing Apple products pay above the median wage paid to factory workers in China — and factory jobs are quite attractive compared with many available alternatives. A common pattern is for young people from rural areas to move to large manufacturing centers, get jobs, and send much of their income back to their families — in other words, the wages paid by such factory jobs aren’t just “living wages” for a single individual, but are often raising the standard of living for entire families.

The suicide rate of Foxconn employees is far below the average rate in China (or the US, for that matter). The absolute numbers look a little worrying if you forget that Foxconn employs ~1.3 million people, i.e. about the population of the entire state of Maine.

And there is zero evidence that Apple condones the hiring of underage workers. Apple mandates screening of new hires and periodic reviews to find underage workers who have slipped through. Apple also publishes this data for public review (which most other companies do not) and has now invited in independent oversight organizations.

Would US workers be happy with Foxconn factory jobs? Probably not. But China is a developing country. That’s not a realistic standard to apply. If it had somehow been possible to force companies to pay US wages to Chinese workers, companies simply wouldn’t have moved manufacturing to China in the first place, and development wouldn’t have occurred, or would have occurred far more slowly. As things stand, the population below the poverty line (defined as $1.25/day in China — Foxconn workers make more than this per hour) has fallen from above 80% to below 5% over the last 30 years.

None of this is to say that there are no labor abuses about which anyone should be concerned. There are, both at Foxconn and elsewhere (it’s much worse in the garment/textile industry, to say nothing of, say, the mining industry). But these things need to be understood in context — it’s a little more complicated than helpless downtrodden workers being abused by greedy corporations. It’s development, and it’s a process. It isn’t always a pretty process, but nobody has ever figured out another way to take poor countries and (eventually) make them rich.

—
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.

[Chris Kenny]

[Chris Harlan] “This makes sense to me as these would be extensions of a PCIe lane, and is why I’m doubtful that you’ll ever see a hub, other than hubs for other protocols.”

PCIe supports star topologies itself — that’s how external PCIe expander boxes like the Magma work. And in any event, Thunderbolt isn’t quite native PCIe — PCIe is just one protocol that can be multiplexed over it. Even if PCIe didn’t support star topologies, Thunderbolt controllers could disguise what was going on from PCIe devices.

—
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.

[Chris Kenny]

[Andrew Kimery] “Jobs also panned the Kindle because “no one reads anymore” and said that flash-based MP3 players always ended up discarded because they are too small. In both cases iPads and iPod Shuffles had to be sitting in a lab somewhere deep in the bowels of Cupertino.”

He was sort of right about books:

Apple did books because they were easy once the iPad was out there and the iTunes Store infrastructure was in place, not because they were a big market.

But yes, Apple has a history of insisting certain products aren’t worthwhile until they start making them. In some cases (when Apple only enters markets years later), it might even be genuine — Apple really doesn’t think certain products are worthwhile until new technologies and new approaches make them so. It’s quite possible that Apple doesn’t quite see how iOS and OS X could be usefully merged today, but they’ve got people working on figuring it out.

—
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.

[Chris Kenny]

[Walter Soyka] “My purchase of an FCPX license turned out to be more representative of my level of professional interest in it than my level of serious use.”

Sure, this isn’t unheard of with paid software, but the threshold interest has to read for a $0 download is significantly lower than for a $300 download.

—
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.

[Chris Kenny]

[Herb Sevush] “Was I dreaming or was it you talking about the future of editing belonging to whoever could capture the kids downloading cheap software to work on their skateboard videos. I guess these 250000 casual users don’t count.”

Downloads don’t necessarily turn into users (even casual ones), especially free downloads.

—
Digital Workflow/Colorist, Nice Dissolve.

You should follow me on Twitter here. Or read our blog.