While it certainly makes sense for Intel to support both, I just can't see that USB 3.0 has any value. Since there are no existing USB 3.0 devices, anyone creating a new product has to decide between USB 3 and Thunderbolt. Why not pick the faster, daisy-chainable technology?

USB 3 has the advantage of operating older (USB 2.0) devices, but so would a USB 2.0 port.

From a computer manufacturer's perspective, until this announcement, they could have had USB 2.0 and Thunderbolt on their system. Now they can have USB 3.0 and Thunderbolt on their system. Sure, they'll do it because it's the same number of ports, so why not use the faster one, but there's really no advantage unless there are a lot of USB 3 devices out there.

From a device manufacturer's perspective, Thunderbolt is superior. So if you're making a new device, USB 3.0 doesn't make much sense - so I don't expect to see a lot of USB 3 devices. The ONLY thing that could save USB 3 from a device manufacturer's perspective is if a USB 3 device would work when connected to an older computer with a USB 2.0 port, but I don't think that will work.

Intel dragged its feet so long that the way things are going, AMD will be first to support it in chipsets. Their main rival. Adopting their own tech before they do. Oi, Intel.

I think it depends on which side of the peripheral divide we are looking at. From a systems manufacturers point of view, there doesn't seem to be a compelling reason to choose USB3 over Thunderbolt, since TB will effectively give them USB3 through adapters. They could certainly have both, but if they had to choose one, my bet would be on TB, assuming the cost is not substantially higher.

But for the device manufacturers, it is a different story. Adding multiple ports on a single device is less common than single port devices. In that case, when choosing between TB and USB3, if they had to choose, I would guess they would opt for USB3. They could do two identical devices, one with TB and one with USB3, but that adds to costs, inventory management, etc. The choice for a single standard would seem to be the opposite reasoning than the systems manufacturers. If the device people had to choose one over the other, then USB3 would seem to make more sense. It will work with TB systems through adapters, whereas a device with a native TB port might not work with a USB3 system port (or would it?).

Why do I get the feeling Thunderbolt is going to be another Firewire? Everybody's going to go USB3.

All this chip bloat makes me suspicious that AMD vs. Intel isn't quite creating the competitive, fairly balanced market you'd want it to see.