Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Behind Intel's USB Competitor?

Posted by Soulskill on from the hopefully-they'll-come-up-with-a-less-goofy-name dept.

We recently discussed Light Peak, Intel's upcoming, optical interconnect technology that boasts data transfer rates of up to 10 Gbps. While some have speculated that Light Peak will directly compete with USB 3.0, Engadget has now unearthed information that indicates the idea for the technology originated from Apple, who apparently asked Intel to develop it. "According to documents we've seen and conversations we've had, Apple had reached out to Intel as early as 2007 with plans for an interoperable standard which could handle massive amounts of data and 'replace the multitudinous connector types with a single connector (FireWire, USB, Display interface).' ... Based on what we've learned, Apple will introduce the new standard for its systems around Fall 2010 in a line of Macs destined for back-to-school shoppers — a follow-up to the 'Spotlight turns to notebooks' event, perhaps. Following the initial launch, there are plans to roll out a low-power variation in 2011, which could lead to more widespread adoption in handhelds and cellphones. The plans from October 2007 show a roadmap that includes Light Peak being introduced to the iPhone / iPod platform to serve as a gateway for multimedia and networking outputs."

3 of 332 comments (clear)

  1. Re:No power transfer.. by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 5, Informative

    They will have a hybrid copper/optical wire to power devices : "In addition, Intel said it's working on bundling the optical fiber with copper wire so Light Peak can be used to power devices plugged into the PC, he said."

    --
    If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
  2. Re:Purpose by CajunArson · · Score: 4, Informative

    You're wrong. USB is and was for hooking up peripherals like keyboard/mice/printers/low-bandwidth devices to effectively replace the old RS-232 serial and parallel ports of yore. USB was never intended to replace the interface that goes to your monitor, your hard drives*, and your ethernet.

    * Yes, we're all aware of USB storage, but see all the comments above about how even low-end devices today can swamp USB... if USB was so great for this then eSATA never would have come into existence.

    This new standard appears to be point-to-point and with all the knowledge we have now it will hopefully be efficient. Additionally, 10Gbps is the starter speed... Intel was talking about scaling it to 100Gbps without too much difficulty.

    --
    AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
  3. Re:Put it on iPods by MCSEBear · · Score: 4, Informative

    So using a 400 megabit per second Firewire port was less efficient than using a 12 megabit per second USB port? USB 2.0 did not exist yet.

    Say you have a 32 Gig flash based MP3 player. The original USB spec can fill that up in just under six hours! Convenient!

    If you have a larger 160 Gig hard disk based MP3 player, then the original USB port can fill that up in just under one day and six hours! Why would anyone want a faster interface than that?

    In comparison, the original Firewire standard can transfer 32 Gigs in just under eleven minutes. 160 Gigabytes can be transferred in just under one hour.