Apple Behind Intel's USB Competitor?

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."

Comments

No power transfer..

[Seth Kriticos]

USB now a days is often used to charge devices too, which is not possible with these optical interfaces. Because of this, I don't think this will have much future for portable devices, so nice try, but I'm not buying it.

Re:No power transfer..

[Jeff DeMaagd]

There was a plan with USB3 to include optical and electrical transfer in the same connector. I think it's been dropped, I expect that this program really become USB4 or an extension of USB3.

Re:No power transfer..

[gyrogeerloose]

You get complete galvanic separation, thinner cables and no dodgy contacts

Good points. The one very nice thing about optical power transmission--assuming it could be made practical in a consumer product--would be total electrical isolation between devices. No more ground loops.

Re:No power transfer..

[JDeane]

To be honest I never quite understood why USB was not just plug in either way and just use some sort of auto negotiate to figure out what pins do what. So there would have been no guessing :( Oh well maybe lesson learned?

Re:No power transfer..

[Nyall]

Nope. I suspect the idea is:
The user can plug the monitor into any port,
and then plug the mouse into any port,
and the keyboard into any port.

And it all works.

How much is Apple patented?

[erroneus]

IEEE1394 or FireWire or iLink had issues with IP if I recall correctly and it was more than just the name it was known by I think. Will this new thing be even more heavily encumbered by patents? I really with manufacturers would grow a pair and stand up against these emerging "standards" in favor of standards that everyone can use. This is especially true of those that utilize encryption and DRM schemes to control how the technologies are implemented. ("Oh sure! You can use our patented technology for free, but you have to sign here, here and here and remember, you can only use it in ways that we tell you. If you use it to exercise 'Fair Use' rights, then we will yank your license and sue you into the ground.")

Market

[RiotingPacifist]

USB dominates the peripherals market because it allows for cheep peripherals.
Monitor cables are specialised to not require the monitor to do much work.
Ethernet cables allow high transfer rates between expensive devices.

What is the market for this?
Will it require "expensive" tech on both ends or will the PC be able to do the lifting?

Re:What do we need USB 3 for, anyway?

[level_headed_midwest]

Optical may have outlived its usefulness for storage and backup, but it hasn't outlived its usefulness as a distribution medium. It is a lot cheaper for a software vendor to ship out their software on ~10-cent DVDs rather than ~$5 SD cards or USB drives. Entertainment firms especially like optical disks because in addition to being cheaper, they are also more fragile and harder to use with computers rather than locked-down, purpose-built, stand-alone players. Computers can better do unwanted things like skip the mandatory 30 minutes of previews, transfer the files to another medium, or strip out DRM altogether, so the entertainment firms want to discourage the playback of their files on computers as much as possible. The obvious distribution method of using the Internet is even more unappealing to software and entertainment distributors as they think it makes piracy easier and makes their ridiculous pricing schemes based on "scarcity" look that much more ridiculous.

So while putting things on optical media may be pretty much useless for customers, suppliers love it and that's why we won't see optical media die for a good, long time.