My point is that Intel can call it something, and Apple can call it something else, and chances are Apple's name will stick (and Intel know it).
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Light Peak Coming in Early 2011 With Apple at Forefront?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My point is that Intel can call it something, and Apple can call it something else, and chances are Apple's name will stick (and Intel know it).
It is possible to pull it off... If it is well done and thought out. The history of IT is filled with examples of people trying do far too much with 1 "thing". iPods, phones, mice, keyboards and the like will almost always be next the user and the machine. There really isn't much to save by using a hub connected to LP. Systems will have USB ports for the next 10 years. There are simply too many devices out there that aren't going to LP.
I want to see this get done right the first time around.
I'm very excited about being able to have a single disk array for an entire house or office and being able to access it at speeds much higher than today. Although I'm also afraid that the bottleneck will simply move to something else.
Still very exciting though.
While I do think that Apple pushes this as a replacement for USB/FireWire, I highly doubt that they use it for their display solutions.
Apple just got finished pushing DisplayPort and companies are finally adopting it. Hard to believe they give up on DisplayPort so soon.
Apple just got finished pushing DisplayPort and companies are finally adopting it. Hard to believe they give up on DisplayPort so soon.
I just don't see how this standard will be dominate over USB in the marketplace.
Sure it may have a performance advantage, but so did FireWire over USB 10 years ago, and we all know how that turned out. Performance wise, FireWire wiped the floor w/ USB, but with that said when was the last time you bought a FireWire enabled peripheral? Why will LP vs. USB 3.0 be any different?
Too bad Apple will refuse to license out the name, litigate anyone who tries to use it and force other vendors to use things like IEEE1394 or i.Link which will end up causing consumer confusion and harm adoption of the standard.
This one was a similarly bogus claim which was immediately debunked by CNET (oh, the irony):
Industry sources are refuting a report claiming that a future fiber-optics technology was an Apple idea that was brought to Intel.
Light Peak was an Intel Labs project that the chipmaker was working on before anyone was thinking of using it, according to industry sources close to the issue.
Assuming that there is power over Light Peak, why wouldn't there also be usb 3.0 protocol support (amongst support for FW, Ethernet, and esata) and a hardware dongle physical adaptor? Costs more on Apple's end, which they will be happy to pass on to the consumer, but no difference on the peripheral end, and Apple gets to reduce the physical interfaces that it has to support that are design constraints in its hardware, especially the mobile stuff.
Seems like Apple is future proofing its hardware with Light Peak.
If LightPeak is really going to replace USB, then I don't see it happening that there will be USB ports next to LightPeak ports.
In my opinion, it will only work out when all ports that LightPeak is able to replace, replaces.
As an example:
Source image: another thread in MacRumors
If it's like this, (e.g. External Hard Drive) manufacturers outside Apple tend to quicker think as "I have to have my product be compatible with LightPeak, otherwise, I can't access about 10% of the market of computers."
If there are USB ports next to LP ports, manufactures tend to think like "Meh. LightPeak? I don't care. I can always put my product onto one of the USB devices on the computers." and LP will slowly die.
For consumers, there are of course the highly overpriced cables that convert LightPeak to USB, Ethernet, MiniDisplay, DVI, etc... Those cables will slowly die, since manufactures tend to slowly adapt Light Peak.
That's my opinion. Let me hear what you think of it.
I think many felt the same way about getting rid of parallel and serial ports. Thankfully, the iMac (while not the first) was instrumental in introducing the world to not only the unnecessary need for a floppy drive but also USB. Over time, the world migrated to a world sans floppy, adopting USB and, to a lesser extent, Firewire/IEEE-1394.
What will be nice and what the caricature is getting wrong is there should only be one or max two Light Peak ports and not the reflected 4. I'd rather have a LP hub with my network, display, printer, scanner and drive connections hooked up to it at all times. That way, when I came home, I could just plug one LP cable into the side of my tablet or laptop and instantly be connected to everything. It would possibly mean thinner, lighter laptops without controllers, etc needed to be installed for the numerous connection types.
If Intel develops the technology, Apple doesn't get to rebrand it. Thats where trademarks and patents come in, unless they pay HUGE fees to Intel.. and there really wouldn't be much reason to do that.
I think Steve Jobs has the same distaste for cables that he does for buttons.
If they can get rid of it, they will. However, I can't believe next year's MacBook Pro revision will only have LP connections and nothing else.
Compare this speculative CNET article with a detailed analysis in EETimes article.
Here are some quotes:
"PC makers are ramping up for a significant transition to the copper-based USB 3.0 that can deliver data at more than 3 Gbits/second. Most have no plans to use the 10 Gbits/second Light Peak, said a senior engineer at one top-tier PC maker who asked not to be named."
But "there's nothing compelling about Light Peak" in its initial implementation, said the PC engineer.
USB 3.0 provides ten times the bandwidth of the existing 480 Mbits/second USB 2.0 spec it replaces. By contrast, Light Peak's promise to double USB 3.0 data rates to nearly 10 Gbits/s "won't be that significant for a lot of apps," said the engineer.
"You will need higher data rates than 10Gbits/s to make differences in apps like video something end users can really see," he said.
By contrast, an estimated $5-10 cost increase for Light Peak chips, optical modules and cables is unacceptable, he added. "Twice the data rate for that cost just doesnt make senseit's taking profit margin away," said the engineer.
Here are some quotes:
"PC makers are ramping up for a significant transition to the copper-based USB 3.0 that can deliver data at more than 3 Gbits/second. Most have no plans to use the 10 Gbits/second Light Peak, said a senior engineer at one top-tier PC maker who asked not to be named."
But "there's nothing compelling about Light Peak" in its initial implementation, said the PC engineer.
USB 3.0 provides ten times the bandwidth of the existing 480 Mbits/second USB 2.0 spec it replaces. By contrast, Light Peak's promise to double USB 3.0 data rates to nearly 10 Gbits/s "won't be that significant for a lot of apps," said the engineer.
"You will need higher data rates than 10Gbits/s to make differences in apps like video something end users can really see," he said.
By contrast, an estimated $5-10 cost increase for Light Peak chips, optical modules and cables is unacceptable, he added. "Twice the data rate for that cost just doesnt make senseit's taking profit margin away," said the engineer.
Light Peak should be have been done on day 1 before USB 1, 1.1, 2, 3, Firewire 400/800, Parallel, Serial, PC Keyboard port, Mini Display Port, etc.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C134 Safari/6533.18.5)
I guessing you don't understand 1s and 0s are 1s and 0s....This is all digital data. There is no reason there can't be hubs with a LP port on the back and USB or FireWire on the front.
KnightWRX said:
I guessing you don't understand 1s and 0s are 1s and 0s....This is all digital data. There is no reason there can't be hubs with a LP port on the back and USB or FireWire on the front.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C134 Safari/6533.18.5)
I guessing you don't understand 1s and 0s are 1s and 0s....This is all digital data. There is no reason there can't be hubs with a LP port on the back and USB or FireWire on the front.
KnightWRX said:
I guessing you don't understand 1s and 0s are 1s and 0s....This is all digital data. There is no reason there can't be hubs with a LP port on the back and USB or FireWire on the front.
So you are saying that this will be a 'bag of hurt'?! Ha!
Sorry I just had to use that term.
Thanks for finding this faster than me. The only thing not coincidental about this is that lilo777 would strain to find an anti-Apple, anti-Jobsian aspect to this somewhere, somehow, however lacking in credulity. There are plenty of real concerns, but he/she never fails to reach for the stars.
!
One ***** cable for everything (video, audio, data). About time.
The future looks bright!
Say it ain't so! I like having an assortment of cables laying all over my desk and I love having my desk and wall cluttered with media like Blu Ray discs. I don't want life to become easier with one cable for everything and streaming video.
Exactly how do trademarks and patents come into it? (assuming that Intel wouldn't be thrilled to let apple do its consumer branding, in the first place).
Trademarks certainly don't come into it. Trademarks prevent company A from naming its products in a way that would confuse people into thinking that the products come from company B. By calling it something different from what Intel calls it, Apple cannot possibly be infringing Intel's trademarks.
And what patent, exactly, does Intel have on this technology?
The point they guy was trying to make is that 1394 is most recognized by the name "Firewire". When you talk to people and ask if they have a p1394 or 'i.link" connection, they say "huh? what the hell is that?" And then you say "Firewire". And then they say "oh, okay, yea I think my PC has one of those."
BTW, USB was not developed by Intel. It was created by a guy named Ajay working out of his garage. He sold it to Intel to be produced into a workable interface for PCs.
Unfortunately it seems to be you who doesn't understand. All digital connections have to have a protocol to provide context to the 1s and 0s
Therefore a physical cable converter has to manipulate the protocols to convert from one to the other. Otherwise the thing at the other end of the cable won't know what to do with the data.The only other alternative to to tunnel one protocol within another, but that's an equally bad idea as it means that the individual devices need to support unwrapping the different protocols.
This.
There are three technologies on the verge of being able to be the "single" external connector for Video, Storage, and other gear:
* USB 3.0
* Light Peak
* PoE (Power over Ethernet)
All three of them are really close, but missing some key components. Power is a big part of the equation. It would be nice to have enough juice to power a high efficiency LED driven display without a separate power cord.
Why are you against the technology? And mini displayport rocks so you're wrong there.
Now that is some good thinking for one implementation of a future technology. I like it.