As far as I can tell from reliable resources, here's the story...
The first time the B422 procedure for a bonded membrane shower was introduced into the TCNA handbook was in 2001 at the request of Schluter to use their membrane with the bonded flange that they had started to make. Schluter had gone around to various drain manufacturers around the USA since the introduction of Kerdi to try to find someone to make them for them, but they could not find anyone to do it so they essentially went into that business and had them made. FWIW, they're shipping in the order of 4-500K a year now, at a decent price, so it seems those companies weren't very forward thinking. So, the first time there was a bonded structural membrane procedure in the industry bible (the TCNA handbook) was 2001, and it was promoted by Schluter, primarily to incorporate their drain assembly with their bonded membrane (Kerdi), as part of their Kerdi Shower System.
That TCNA procedure calls for a membrane meeting the ANSI spec A118.10. That spec was introduced by ANSI in 1993. So, in theory, prior to that, there was no spec to compare product performance against, nor any TCNA procedure to build a qualified shower (that took another 8-years). Any use of either Kerdi or NobleTS or any other product that may have been around, was done based strictly on the manufacturer's reputation and provided instructions, and not directly in accordance with the nationally recognized industry guidelines. That they could work is not in question, but whether they were approved by the plumbing code and local jurisdictions for those purposes was. An easily searched reference on that is when Massachusetts first listed NobleTS and Kerdi as acceptable in that state (Noble beat Schluter by a few months in getting that introduced to MA, but the rest of the country for the most part because of the TCNA B422 introduction had been using it since it was introduced, and available to anyone making compatible products). If you want to get picky, Schluter's drain was the basis along with their Kerdi for B422, and thus, was the first to be approved, but it is a fine point.
John was right, NobleTS was introduced before Kerdi - 1982 verses 1987. They perform similar jobs - provide a bonded waterproofing system. The installation instructions are not the same, and you cannot use the same procedure between the two and achieve a warranted, reliable job, though. The similarity is that to get a proper seam, you must overlap the material at least 2". Here is a big difference, though, with NobleTS, you use two beads of a sealant you caulk in place, place the edges together, then spread the material to embed the fleece between the two. Noble TS is over 3x thicker, and a corner may use one of their preformed ones or be cut and overlapped (you can do this with Kerdi as well, and was the only way prior to the introduction of the preformed corners), but you'll have a situation where it will have three layers or more - with the sealant in between, nearly 0.1" buildup. Kerdi is bonded with the same thinset you use to place it on the substrate, and make the seams. Their corners are made of thinner material, and again, you may need as many as three layers in places where the corner, the sheets, and the banding material go. But, the buildup is much less. NobleTS is 0.030" thick. Kerdi is 0.008" thick, and the Kerdiband is 0.005" thick, so the actual corner buildup is considerably thinner, and you do not need to use a special sealant to make it work, or to bond it to the drain flange. To NobleTS advantage, is that it is less vapor permeable, which in a steam shower is a good thing, but KerdiDS also meets the same spec for a commercial steam shower, and is still only 0.020" thick. Because of the sealant with the seams on NobleTS, you can flood test the system quicker, and that can be a useful advantage verses waiting long enough for the mortar to cure (nominally 24-hours).
Prior to the advent of the Schluter bonded Kerdi drain assembly, there was no TCNA approved bonded membrane procedure to build a shower. It may have been used, but wouldn't have passed everywhere since there were no standards for defining it. Prior to inventing and having the Kerdi drain produced, the TCNA guideline didn't exist. Any sheet membrane manufacturer used their own method to produce a bond to what was the commonly used clamping drain. Noble still has the materials to perform that task, essentially the same way it was done way back at the origination. They also have other drains that get bonded on the surface with sealant. Schluter has a conversion drain to raise the assembly, and provides essentially the same bonded flange as in their normal plastic cemented in flange if you already have a clamping drain installed. Both companies have all metal drains where those are required for fire code or other local ordinances.
Both systems are good, they each have their advantages, and to get it to work, you must follow their specific instructions and use the required materials. Once you've applied either membrane to the substrate properly, they both pass the industry requirements for a waterproof, bonded surface membrane shower and do not leak. Both NobleTS and KerdiDS exceed the requirements for a commercial steam shower's perm rating (0.15 verses 0.18), so the actual difference in total installed performance will be more of an installer's actual skill rather than a difference in material. (Note, the system install value may differ compared to the sheet perm rating by some, but both are still comfortably within the industry requirements).
So, it comes down to what you are comfortable with, and, especially if you're dealing with smaller tile, how thick of a buildup you might get in the corners, and how comfortable you are using the sealant required on the NobleTS system as to which ends up the best for your job. Personally, I prefer Schluter's product line. If a paying customer demanded NobleTS, I wouldn't have any issues using it, as it's a fine product, too. To me, I think there are more places to make an error with Noble's system, but if good workmanship and knowledge is utilized, they are both fine. Often, it comes down to the installers preferences, biases, and perceptions...what is an issue to one, may be a benefit to the other. John has a lot of biases, and this pushes him in one direction...me, I could go either way, depending on the specific situation involved. And, as I've said before, 1/4" glass is no more waterproof than 1/2" glass...it just depends on what else you are asking it to do for you in the equation. In between two hard surfaces, tile and the wall or pan, one is neither better or worse at keeping things waterproof, but might offer some other benefit for your specific application. They both pass the same industry tests for a successful, reliable, long-lasting shower IF you put it together like it was designed.