Slashdot Mirror


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."

29 of 332 comments (clear)

  1. Put it on iPods by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 4, Funny

    Put it on iPods and it becomes ubiquitous almost immediately. They could charge extra for a usb cable or dock.

    --
    If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    1. Re:Put it on iPods by ceoyoyo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The iPod already uses a special connector. You could just make an integrated cable with power and an optical data link, the same way USB and Firewire now use a cable with data and power links.

      Actually, they'd be nuts not to just spec the cable to have power anyway. It's not going to be nearly as popular if suddenly everyone has to start carrying around wall warts for their external drives.

    2. 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.

  2. Compete with who? by poptones · · Score: 4, Funny

    So you're saying Apple is behind this new technology coming from intel at their behest but it's all part of a scheme to devise a new technology that will get intel to compete with... intel?

    Man, you must REALLY think Steve Jobs is clever! Imagine, getting intel to go into competition with itself!

  3. No power transfer.. by Seth+Kriticos · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    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:No power transfer.. by dintlu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think the idea is to have a homogeneous connective form factor for all data connections on the computer, so that all cables are interchangeable. As far as I know, the bandwidth of an optical transmission isn't limited by the transmitting medium itself, but by the interpretative hardware on either end, which is improving as defined by Moore's law. So you set a standard for the cable and connector now and create interchangeable cables that are not device-specific, which results in all changes to the technology occuring completely on the backend, out of sight to the user.

      If this is, indeed, the goal of LightPeak, i *really* hope that they learned a lesson from USB, and make a connector that can be plugged in using tactile feedback, rather than requiring the user guess-and-rotate as is the case today.

    3. Re:No power transfer.. by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    4. Re:No power transfer.. by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
    5. Re:No power transfer.. by roystgnr · · Score: 3, Funny

      I should also point out that if your data wires are fiber optic you don't have to worry about your power wires interfering with them, so the cables can be longer. Or just

      Or just what?

      Wow, that data interference problem is more serious than I thought!

    6. Re:No power transfer.. by JDeane · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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?

    7. Re:No power transfer.. by Xtravar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So now users can call tech support with their mouse plugged into their monitor and say that their "computer doesn't work".

      I don't understand the fixation on making a completely universal plug. It seems good in theory, but what does it actually get us beyond some cable interchanging possibilities and expensive upgrades?

      Why aren't we working on better wireless communication so that we don't need wires at all? I can't get my wireless mouse 2 feet away from the receiver, and I sure as hell don't want another cable cluttering things up.

      --
      Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
    8. Re:No power transfer.. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't worry, I'm sure monster cable will come out with a line of RF-shielded fiber for the most accurate transmission possible.

    9. Re:No power transfer.. by Nyall · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
  4. Replace? by Throtex · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "replace the multitudinous connector types with a single connector" = multitudinous connector types + 1;

    1. Re:Replace? by Alef · · Score: 3, Informative

      Perhaps, perhaps not. If the transition is made as a step to a new generation of connectors, you will hopefully end up with a generation that has fewer connector types. After all, we have managed to go from

      DE-9 (Serial port) + DB-25 (Parallel port) + DA-15 (Game port) + PS/2 (Keyboard and mouse) + VGA (Screen)

      to

      USB + DVI (+ FireWire for some cameras).

    2. Re:Replace? by ascendant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except that no, you're wrong.

      Why have you so quickly forgotten USB?

      Mice: used to be serial or ps/2; now: USB.
      Keyboards: serial, ps/2, AT; now: USB.
      External CD drives: used to be SCSI or whatever; now: USB.
      External HDDs, the same, even if some enthusiasts also use eSATA.

      And I'll bet you have nothing at all to say about the hundreds of other little thing that use USB. Phones, flash drives, webcams, tv tuners, wifi, ethernet, bluetooth, and SO MANY MORE things I can't even remember much less have seen before.

      USB promised to "replace the multitudinous connector types with a single connector" and succeeded.

      --
      Do not attribute to malice that which can be easily explained by incompetence.
  5. Re:Transfer faster! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maybe you need to expand the collection. Even at 10Gbps, it would take me all day to transfer MY porn.

  6. Re:What do we need USB 3 for, anyway? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes.

    Transferring a 100 MB app to my iPhone takes a noticeable amount of time, for example. A movie is worse. And things will get MUCH worse in the future, when we have higher resolution portable devices.

    And what Apple wants to do with this interconnect is to replace things like DVI/Display Port, Firewire/USB, (e)SATA, etc., all on one bus.

  7. Re:What do we need USB 3 for, anyway? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Do you only use it for your mouse and keyboard? If that's the case, then you'll probably be satisfied.

    Now, back in the real world, it becomes the bottleneck for even low-end, high-capacity storage devices built around traditional spinning media. With us now moving towards solid-state storage, USB 2.0 fails us horribly. We can only manage 30% to 35% read/write capacity utilization under real-world conditions.

    The same goes for connecting high-end visual displays via USB. Once you get above a resolution of 2000 pixels in either direction, USB 2.0 just can't handle it.

    USBNET2, basically IP networking over USB 2.0, never took off because it's just too damn slow.

    There are many applications where we need much, much faster transfer rates than USB 2.0 can support.

  8. Re:Why on earth going propietary? Oh, it's Apple.. by ZackSchil · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You don't have to buy a $40 HDMI cable. If the cables you buy are that expensive, then you're just getting fleeced. Do the barest amount of research before you purchase.

    Also, the cheap HDMI cables are more expensive than "ethernet patch cables" because of licensing, a more expensive connector, more wires, and more stringent requirements on the quality of materials. The cable costs more than a dollar because it's the equivalent of several CAT-6a cables. It's designed to transmit raw video data at 1920x1080p30. That's roughly 1.4Gbps. The standard even defines faster rates. You'd need 2-3 CAT6a cables to transfer video at that rate and still cover everything else HDMI takes care of.

  9. How much is Apple patented? by erroneus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.")

    1. Re:How much is Apple patented? by putaro · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We'll have to see if Apple has learned anything. I first heard about FireWire in maybe 1993. I went to work at Apple in 1995 and met with the people developing FireWire and there was lots of talk about having devices natively support it, yada yada. It didn't make it into shipping Apple hardware until 1999. Besides being late to market, Apple insisted on charging licensing fees to everyone who incorporated FireWire.

      Had FireWire been out in 1996, they might have been able to get away with the licensing fees. Had they forgone the licensing fees in 1999 they might have kept USB a low-speed interconnect.

      In order to succeed in today's market it will need to offer technical advantages over USB 3.0 and not come with a price premium. Having Intel introduce is a pretty strong first step. We'll have to see how the rest of it plays out.

  10. Market by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    --
    IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
  11. Re:What do we need USB 3 for, anyway? by dhovis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And what Apple wants to do with this interconnect is to replace things like DVI/Display Port, Firewire/USB, (e)SATA, etc., all on one bus.

    I think this is probably what Apple is after. As I look at my Macbook Pro, I have the following connectors: MagSave (power), Ethernet, FW800, miniDP, USBx2, SD card, line-in, and headphones. You could probably get rid of Ethernet, FW, miniDP, and USB and replace them with Light Peak. Since I'm rarely using more than two of those at a time, you could probably reduce the number of ports and start shrinking devices.

    The other thing that Apple seems to be targeting is the optical drive. I think you're going to see Apple dropping optical altogether, and moving OS delivery to SD cards. Most other software/media will be downloads.

    --

    --
    The internet is the greatest source of biased information in the history of mankind.

  12. 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.
  13. Re:What do we need USB 3 for, anyway? by level_headed_midwest · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Just "gittin-r-done," day after day.
  14. Apple by ThrowAwaySociety · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "replace the multitudinous connector types with a single connector" = multitudinous connector types + 1;

    This is Apple talking. Since when has Apple bothered with legacy connector support?

  15. Re:You keep using that phrase, "goes without sayin by node+3 · · Score: 4, Funny

    what you clearly meant to say was "bears repeating"

    Well, yeah. That goes without saying.