3 ms·

Insane difference between thunderbolt vs competitors. Clearly we are paying for quality here, the question is LTV how quickly does the thunderbolt break

CharlesW 3y ago
Anecdotally, I haven't yet had a Thunderbolt cable break. The caveat is that I haven't used TB cables in high-abuse scenarios (field work, etc.).
izacus 3y ago
Based on my experience - much more quickly than the "normal" USB-C cables. Those cables are also short and rather thick in most cases (and cost like 50$+). But that's also because TB has significantly lesser margins for errors than USB 3.1/3.2.
troupo 3y ago
> Insane difference between thunderbolt vs competitors. > Clearly we are paying for quality here It's not just quality. It's because Intel did the sensible thing and made a bunch of things that are optional in USB-C mandatory in Thunderbolt certification. So you always know what you're getting.
- keep_reading 3y ago
  That's why I prefer to pay the premium for Thunderbolt cables. You know exactly what you're getting.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  The problem is that cables are not clearly marked by speed. Being able to get a $5 slow cable is a good thing.
  - usrusr 3y ago
    Unfortunately with USB-C, it seems to be impossible to get those really lightweight thin charge only cables. I really miss those for traveling. My lightest A/micro-B examples even do some slow data, which has occasionally been useful as a contingency.
keep_reading 3y ago
Why would it break if the same type of wiring is used? Unless you mean the active chipset breaking somehow, rendering that cable useless?
stinos 3y ago
Insane difference between thunderbolt vs competitors. Well, yes, because the competitors are functionally a completely different cable. One of them is just for charging, that is obviously going to be very different. So kinda hard to tell what you are really paying for. As another comment says: would be rather interesting to see differences in cables which claim to do the same.
EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 3y ago
My $10 USB-C cable carries 4k/60hz video + audio just fine, why should I overpay?
crote 3y ago
> Insane difference between thunderbolt vs competitors. Clearly we are paying for quality here Not really. It's an apples-to-oranges comparison. The Apple cable is a relatively long 40Gbps cable, with active redriver/retimer due to its length. The competitors are bargain-bin 0.48Gbps cables, intended primarily for charging. In fact, the NiceTQ cable violates the spec so badly it won't even work in most scenarios. The ATYFUER one is part of an A-to-C cable and is pretty much a textbook example of what such a connector should look like. The AmazonBasics one is also a decent example of a pretty standard low-speed C-C cable.
ilyt 3y ago
We didn't had any actual competition to Apple cables in comparison tho. It's literally apple(s)-to-oranges comparison

CharlesW 3y ago

Anecdotally, I haven't yet had a Thunderbolt cable break. The caveat is that I haven't used TB cables in high-abuse scenarios (field work, etc.).

izacus 3y ago

Based on my experience - much more quickly than the "normal" USB-C cables. Those cables are also short and rather thick in most cases (and cost like 50$+). But that's also because TB has significantly lesser margins for errors than USB 3.1/3.2.

troupo 3y ago

> Insane difference between thunderbolt vs competitors. > Clearly we are paying for quality here It's not just quality. It's because Intel did the sensible thing and made a bunch of things that are optional in USB-C mandatory in Thunderbolt certification. So you always know what you're getting.

keep_reading 3y ago
That's why I prefer to pay the premium for Thunderbolt cables. You know exactly what you're getting.
Dylan16807 3y ago
The problem is that cables are not clearly marked by speed. Being able to get a $5 slow cable is a good thing.
- usrusr 3y ago
  Unfortunately with USB-C, it seems to be impossible to get those really lightweight thin charge only cables. I really miss those for traveling. My lightest A/micro-B examples even do some slow data, which has occasionally been useful as a contingency.

keep_reading 3y ago

Why would it break if the same type of wiring is used? Unless you mean the active chipset breaking somehow, rendering that cable useless?

stinos 3y ago

Insane difference between thunderbolt vs competitors. Well, yes, because the competitors are functionally a completely different cable. One of them is just for charging, that is obviously going to be very different. So kinda hard to tell what you are really paying for. As another comment says: would be rather interesting to see differences in cables which claim to do the same.

EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 3y ago

My $10 USB-C cable carries 4k/60hz video + audio just fine, why should I overpay?

crote 3y ago

> Insane difference between thunderbolt vs competitors. Clearly we are paying for quality here Not really. It's an apples-to-oranges comparison. The Apple cable is a relatively long 40Gbps cable, with active redriver/retimer due to its length. The competitors are bargain-bin 0.48Gbps cables, intended primarily for charging. In fact, the NiceTQ cable violates the spec so badly it won't even work in most scenarios. The ATYFUER one is part of an A-to-C cable and is pretty much a textbook example of what such a connector should look like. The AmazonBasics one is also a decent example of a pretty standard low-speed C-C cable.

ilyt 3y ago

We didn't had any actual competition to Apple cables in comparison tho. It's literally apple(s)-to-oranges comparison