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."

1 of 332 comments (clear)

  1. Where do we draw the line? by chaboud · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    It declares soda fair game for government intervention (PDF) on the grounds that "market failures" in this area are causing "less-than-optimal production and consumption."' Where do we draw the line?"

    Where do we draw the line?

    How about back at banning smoking at private establishments (I don't smoke, but it's fair to let people who do make a choice on their own property), or banning foie gras (I live in Chicago, and we've since reversed this stupidity)? The moment that we started in on this over-policing is the moment that we opened up the possibility of banning or taxing because of "market failures" (i.e. The market not doing what one particular party wants). Perhaps our soda isn't keeping us all alive as long, but who's to say that the quality of life afforded by synthesized cola drinks isn't worth the trade-off? And now we'll have the conflicting pressures of federal corn subsidies that make drinks cheap and state taxes that make them expensive, creating an artificial "optimal" price and a rube-goldberg-esque funnel of funds from the federal government to state and local governments?

    This feels a lot like imminent domain, with public necessity turning into public benefit turning into public convenience turning into public whim.

    Anyone who wants a definition of slippery slope can look at this new cola war as an example.