4 ms·

> You’ll also need the intermediary Thunderbolt Share software, designed by Intel, which will ship on licensed PCs. If you own a licensed Thunderbolt Share dock

> You’ll also need the intermediary Thunderbolt Share software, designed by Intel, which will ship on licensed PCs. If you own a licensed Thunderbolt Share docking station, that accessory maker will point you to where you’ll be able to download the software. Remember, at least one of the PCs or docking stations must have a Thunderbolt Share license. Eww. Killing a feature before it is even released.

wtallis 2y ago
I wonder if Intel's actually trying to get a bit of extra revenue from selling this software, or did they outsource it and the licensing situation is for the sake of the real developer? This sounds like what you'd see if Intel doesn't actually own the software and is just putting their branding on somebody else's application.
- elric 2y ago
  They're already allegedly charging a metric fuckton for TB4 certification/licensing. It's weird how it's 2024 and we can't have simple interoperability ...
  - diffeomorphism 2y ago
    Well, usb4 should work just fine. TB4 instead means that it will probably not work with most devices, except maybe on intel, but maybe still not because a license could be missing. Very helpful "do not buy" logo.
    - cogman10 2y ago
      The thing about USB4 that I really don't like is that it's got a bunch of optional parts in the standard (including the TB3 compatibility). Right now, the best way to guarantee a cable works with basically all the USB4 standards is to purchase a certified TB3 cable. Any ole USB-C cable may support anything from USB 2.0 speeds to TB 4 speeds. It's sort of a crap shoot. The same is true for a USB4 controller.
      - elric 2y ago
        Yeah, and I've noticed that they seem a lot more fragile than previous generations of USB cables. Recently failed to flash a phone until I switched cables ... they were identical, but the failing one had been in my bag for a good while and probably suffered from wear & tear.
rock_artist 2y ago
TL;DR - non standard proprietary software based solution. While USB-C is also complicated. If you get basic USB 3.1 or later compliant cable and devices you have basic docking Mac/PC/Android you name it. The exact opposite of another “standard” that won’t “just work.
coffeebeqn 2y ago
Totally understandable. It’s not like most OSes can handle advanced use cases like copying files
dathinab 2y ago
yes but also no Also a few things which might be relevant to agree with my argument: 1. You don't need the license to install the Thunderbolt Share, only one device needs a license the other can use the software unlicensed 2. Licenses are not sold (to normal customers) they only come with new TB products, but this product are not limited to computers, i.e. in their FAQ they explicitly mention docks, hubs, monitors. 3. If we compare the experience with some other tech demos the Remote desktop feature on TB5 will be quite smooth, low latency, high resolution compared to TB4 or WiFi based solutions. Smooth enough to open up new application design space. That is if you can convince your management/boss that is its viable (which you now can by showing Thunderbolt Share). 4. While TB5 can convince tech affine people by it's speed it has a much harder time to convince others. Sure it has 120Gbps but so what? That doesn't translate to something non technical users have a intuitive understanding for. On the other hand demo a file transfer of a big file over TB5 which takes a few seconds and then over USB4 (using TB3 networking+network share) or WiFi (using network share) and you can be very convincing (for why TB5 is needed in new office Laptops). 5. TB4, no lets be honest TB3&USB4 are more then good enough for a lot of people, some people have hobbies or use-cases where it matters, most do not. But with Thunderbolt Share you have a convenient program bundled into products you can use for up selling them. So in the end it doesn't matter if the product itself is widely successful. It's there for demoing how useful TB5 is, for providing hardware vendors with a up sell opportunity which also discounts USB4 only devices (due to not being compatible at all) etc. But I don't think they are trying to have a competition app at all (I mean getting a bit of additional revenue is nice but Intels priorities lie elsewhere).

wtallis 2y ago

I wonder if Intel's actually trying to get a bit of extra revenue from selling this software, or did they outsource it and the licensing situation is for the sake of the real developer? This sounds like what you'd see if Intel doesn't actually own the software and is just putting their branding on somebody else's application.

elric 2y ago
They're already allegedly charging a metric fuckton for TB4 certification/licensing. It's weird how it's 2024 and we can't have simple interoperability ...
- diffeomorphism 2y ago
  Well, usb4 should work just fine. TB4 instead means that it will probably not work with most devices, except maybe on intel, but maybe still not because a license could be missing. Very helpful "do not buy" logo.
  - cogman10 2y ago
    The thing about USB4 that I really don't like is that it's got a bunch of optional parts in the standard (including the TB3 compatibility). Right now, the best way to guarantee a cable works with basically all the USB4 standards is to purchase a certified TB3 cable. Any ole USB-C cable may support anything from USB 2.0 speeds to TB 4 speeds. It's sort of a crap shoot. The same is true for a USB4 controller.
    - elric 2y ago
      Yeah, and I've noticed that they seem a lot more fragile than previous generations of USB cables. Recently failed to flash a phone until I switched cables ... they were identical, but the failing one had been in my bag for a good while and probably suffered from wear & tear.

rock_artist 2y ago

TL;DR - non standard proprietary software based solution. While USB-C is also complicated. If you get basic USB 3.1 or later compliant cable and devices you have basic docking Mac/PC/Android you name it. The exact opposite of another “standard” that won’t “just work.

coffeebeqn 2y ago

Totally understandable. It’s not like most OSes can handle advanced use cases like copying files

dathinab 2y ago

yes but also no Also a few things which might be relevant to agree with my argument: 1. You don't need the license to install the Thunderbolt Share, only one device needs a license the other can use the software unlicensed 2. Licenses are not sold (to normal customers) they only come with new TB products, but this product are not limited to computers, i.e. in their FAQ they explicitly mention docks, hubs, monitors. 3. If we compare the experience with some other tech demos the Remote desktop feature on TB5 will be quite smooth, low latency, high resolution compared to TB4 or WiFi based solutions. Smooth enough to open up new application design space. That is if you can convince your management/boss that is its viable (which you now can by showing Thunderbolt Share). 4. While TB5 can convince tech affine people by it's speed it has a much harder time to convince others. Sure it has 120Gbps but so what? That doesn't translate to something non technical users have a intuitive understanding for. On the other hand demo a file transfer of a big file over TB5 which takes a few seconds and then over USB4 (using TB3 networking+network share) or WiFi (using network share) and you can be very convincing (for why TB5 is needed in new office Laptops). 5. TB4, no lets be honest TB3&USB4 are more then good enough for a lot of people, some people have hobbies or use-cases where it matters, most do not. But with Thunderbolt Share you have a convenient program bundled into products you can use for up selling them. So in the end it doesn't matter if the product itself is widely successful. It's there for demoing how useful TB5 is, for providing hardware vendors with a up sell opportunity which also discounts USB4 only devices (due to not being compatible at all) etc. But I don't think they are trying to have a competition app at all (I mean getting a bit of additional revenue is nice but Intels priorities lie elsewhere).