Steve Jobs: USB 3 Not Taking Off At This Time

[derek]

Perspective On Faster Bus Technologies

There is some very ragged logic and lack of factual information amidst the comments here. Rather than scold the offenders, let me instead get you started on some actual information.

1) USB 3 & FireWire 3200: Here are the relevant Wikipedia entries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewire#FireWire_S1600_and_S3200

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_3.0#USB_3.0

If Apple are being dick heads about USB 3, then why hasn't Apple implemented the superior FireWire 3200, their own technology, into Macs either? This subject really is market driven. Meanwhile, the currently available connection technologies are apparently 'good enough' for both casual and professional users, a recurring theme.

2) As for Light Peak: It has some problems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Peak

The big glaring problem is the lack of a power source in the standard. It it going to power devices or not? Will it have a pair of electric wires in the cable or not? Light transmission allows much longer cable lengths, but what about the accompanying electrical power dissipation? None of this has been definitively addressed.

3) The situation as I see it is that we have advancing bus technologies with faster speeds that are looking for a market. What market requires these faster speeds? Apparently what we have now is 'good enough'. FireWire 800 can handle 1080p video streaming! So what exactly needs USB 3 or FireWire 3200 or Light Peak? I expect there are some up and coming uses out there in the marketplace, but they certainly aren't very vocal or demanding.

Apparently we are at an odd place where the technology is beyond the needs of the market, for the moment.

I'd enjoy reading further perspective on current needs for faster bus speeds.

 

[AidenShaw]

I'm not a fan of Steve Jobs by any means, but he did build a computer computer from the ground up, developing a loyal fan base and brand image equivalent to Harley Davidson(well, without the leather and tattoos).

...or, maybe not.

 

[derek]

Happy AirPrint, Lousy Bluetooth

And no, not everyone has a Bluetooth mouse and a wireless printer.

I'd enjoy getting an HP ePrinter if only to take advantage of AirPrint in Mac OS X 10.6.5 and iOS 4.2.

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/09/15airprint.html

But I have never liked Bluetooth anything. It's an inadequate technology for computers: Clunky, unreliable, with lousy latency and bandwidth. Kill it already!

 

[Eidorian]

This is USB 1.1 -> 2.0 all over again.

I recall Apple being VERY late to supporting USB 2.0; they didn't support it until it had already been on generic PCs for quite some time. I remember buying a TiBook in 2003 and having to deal with USB 1.1 much longer than anyone should have to.

I also wonder why Intel is lagging in support. Hell, weren't they the ones that pushed USB 2.0 so hard in the first place over Firewire?

Apple was still playing with the OS 9 to OS X limbo phase in its deployment of USB 2.0. You had to shift to OS X only machines to get USB 2.0 outside of expansion cards.

They're currently back into their corner by being stuck with nVidia and Intel's own erratic behaviors with the new standard. Everything not trapped with nVidia should have at least a single USB 3.0 today.

 

[Iconoclysm]

Apple doesn't sell entry level hardware. Entry level notebooks retail for $500.

The average consumer might like to use a mouse for instance, when at home. Or connect a printer. Or do what ever else USB was invented for. You know, connect stuff.

2 ports is just lame, and there is no excuse for it really. Especially when they are so close together that a big UMTS stick might block the other port and necessitates an ugly extension cord. It doesn't matter much when on the road, but a quickly growing number of people use notebooks as desktop replacement.

And no, not everyone has a Bluetooth mouse and a wireless printer.

I'd bet a huge amount of Mac owners own both, probably 80%+

 

[Iconoclysm]

God, some people are so in denial, it actually hurts. It takes bloody ages to copy several GB around. This is noticable and a PITA for even the dumbest computer user. And even the dumbest people have discovered MP3s and AVIs and 14MP cameras by now. Have you ever tried to make a backup of your data to a USB 2 drive? Obviously not.

Denial about what? Are you really that far gone that you can't even discuss something without assuming the person you are talking to is an Apple fanboy?

No, I don't use a USB drive to back up my drives, I use NAS for that.

 

[AidenShaw]

They're currently back into their corner by being stuck with nVidia and Intel's own erratic behaviors with the new standard. Everything not trapped with nVidia should have at least a single USB 3.0 today.

The Intel systems with USB 3.0 today (laptops and mini-towers and workstations) are adding a small 3rd party USB 3.0 controller to the motherboards.

Any Apple could do the same, except that someone at Apple doesn't want to support current and emerging standards.

Or, someone at Apple is so concerned with form over function that they won't allow a fraction of a cm² to be used for a USB 3 chip.

 

[Iconoclysm]

When have you last seen regular computer users?
I assure you most of them don't have BT mice. People don't have a clue what Bluetooth actually is, and they will go out and buy a random cordless mouse that they like. And the majority of mice is actually not Bluetooth.

Man, you sure base a lot on assuming everyone else is very, very stupid.

 

[cmaier]

The Intel systems with USB 3.0 today (laptops and mini-towers and workstations) are adding a small 3rd party USB 3.0 controller to the motherboards.

Any Apple could do the same, except that someone at Apple doesn't want to support current and emerging standards.

Or, someone at Apple is so concerned with form over function that they won't allow a fraction of a cm² to be used for a USB 3 chip.

You are being disingenuous. You know it takes more space than that.

 

[deconstruct60]

So basically, it will be a major FAIL for external hard drives and pretty much all external devices that are used in the mobile space. Because you WILL need an integrated power source here, and USB 3.0 provides that (and sufficient speed for the next years).

LightPeak 2.0 or 3.0 might get a variant short haul connection with power. For version 1.0 though that isn't going to buy a whole lot. I have yet to see a bus powered 15K RPM SAS drive. Or a bus powered RAID box. Almost anything that is going to saturate a 5Gbps line is also likely drawing more power that you generally want to solely rely on bus power for.

Bus power peripherals mobile perhipherals are the key market for LightPeak to get traction on. Connecting two boxes that are plugged in like a RAID box and a computer , a monitor/camer/hub and a computer, docking station to a computer , etc. are the problems where Lightpeak has much better traction.

Power over Ethernet , FW , and USB 3.0 in the immediate future do just fine deliverying power. If all sending over the wire is a single protocol of that single device then there is no big win with Lightpeak. It would just be a more expensive way of doing the exact same thing. The data would transfer just as fast ( since likely transported in the legacy protocol). The power may/may not be higher.

LP gets much more traction when there are multiple protocol to be sent over the a single, more expensive , cable. If it is a single protocol.... it is just more expensive.

Once LP gets some traction on things where it has an advantage perhaps it will expand into eliminating the legacy sockets. Until it gets any traction it isn't going to remove anything.

 

[ranReloaded]

Sounds good to me. Just give me ANYTHING that’s not symmetrical. I should be able to feel easily which way the plug goes without having to look into the end of the connection. USB has always been absurd that way—half the time I try wrong the first time. (Some USB cables look more symmetrical than others.)

Even worse, I sometimes happen to try the RIGHT orientation first, but because of the inherent pressure you have to excert to make it fit I wrongly assume I have it opposite, and switch to the wrong orientation (no one wants ro damage their iMac ports!), only to find out i was right in the first place... Then switch again!

 

[Eidorian]

The Intel systems with USB 3.0 today (laptops and mini-towers and workstations) are adding a small 3rd party USB 3.0 controller to the motherboards.

Any Apple could do the same, except that someone at Apple doesn't want to support current and emerging standards.

Or, someone at Apple is so concerned with form over function that they won't allow a fraction of a cm² to be used for a USB 3 chip.

I'd have to say it is the tiny logic boards in addition to coughing up the few dollars for it.

 

[AidenShaw]

You are being disingenuous. You know it takes more space than that.

Then please explain how many cm² are needed - if you know that it takes more.

 

[macnerd93]

He said the same thing about bluray, mac users wont see it until it becomes an industry standard.

actually there are other issues with that, there are also licensing issues with blu-ray and as far as i'm aware Apple dont want to agree to those terms

 

[cmaier]

Then please explain how many cm² are needed - if you know that it takes more.

The renesas host controller chip, for example, is 1cm^2, not including space needed for mounting, capacitors, the metal traces, etc. It also takes up a PCIe connection, requires an external 48MHz clock and burns 1W.

 

[lilo777]

You are being disingenuous. You know it takes more space than that.

Oh come on! If all other computer manufacturers somehow managed to fit this controller in their laptops, Apple could do it. Sure the laptop might have grown in size but nobody would notice. And what about iMacs and Mac Pros? They have been a laughing stock for a lack of pro hardware for quite a while (like GPUs). Is adding a chip also an issue there?

 

[cmaier]

Oh come on! If all other computer manufacturers somehow managed to fit this controller in their laptops, Apple could do it. Sure the laptop might have grown in size but nobody would notice. And what about iMacs and Mac Pros? They have been a laughing stock for a lack of pro hardware for quite a while (like GPUs). Is adding a chip also an issue there?

You are arguing against a point I didn't make. All I said was that the engineering cost of doing so is higher than he said. It takes board real estate for the chip, caps, leads, traces, ROM, crystal, etc., a PCI channel, burns a watt and adds to heat, etc. If you want USB3 and are willing to accept a computer that made that engineering tradeoff, go buy one. Otherwise wait until Intel starts selling USB3 in its chipset, at which point Apple will support it.

 

[lilo777]

You are arguing against a point I didn't make. All I said was that the engineering cost of doing so is higher than he said. It takes board real estate for the chip, caps, leads, traces, ROM, crystal, etc., a PCI channel, burns a watt and adds to heat, etc. If you want USB3 and are willing to accept a computer that made that engineering tradeoff, go buy one. Otherwise wait until Intel starts selling USB3 in its chipset, at which point Apple will support it.

Sure, it involves a lot of technical details (moderns computers are complex ) but for those who needs to buy a laptop which is going to last 2...4 years, I believe, these trade offs make perfect sense. I can see how Apple want to keep using the same basic motherboard design for as long as possible to save on R&D to maximize the profits. I do not see any benefits for end users in this behavior.

 

[Nameci]

If they put more space to accomodate the chip in the already cramped logic board, they will have to take away space or a fraction of the battery which is very essential to keep your mobile platform "on" for 10 hours. If it is integrated on the chipset, they don't have to worry about the battery space, saves up on other chip peripheral and support components. The parts maybe cheap, but if you know how the manufacturing assembly works, it is not cheap.

 

[lilo777]

If they put more space to accomodate the chip in the already cramped logic board, they will have to take away space or a fraction of the battery which is very essential to keep your mobile platform "on" for 10 hours. If it is integrated on the chipset, they don't have to worry about the battery space, saves up on other chip peripheral and support components. The parts maybe cheap, but if you know how the manufacturing assembly works, it is not cheap.

Alternatively, Apple could make a laptop wider by 3 mm. The only thing Apple is worried about is their profits.

 

[QuarterSwede]

If they put more space to accomodate the chip in the already cramped logic board, they will have to take away space or a fraction of the battery which is very essential to keep your mobile platform "on" for 10 hours. If it is integrated on the chipset, they don't have to worry about the battery space, saves up on other chip peripheral and support components. The parts maybe cheap, but if you know how the manufacturing assembly works, it is not cheap.

Exactly. You'll be hard pressed to find another laptop that size that runs for so long. That's what appeals to people.

 

[franswa za]

i do not see usb 3 taling off universally, with apple/intel's Light Peak connectors about to be released (2011?) away with old type chunky metal connectors!

 

[deconstruct60]

I think Light Peak (LP) is useful and will probably get some market traction. It is the hand wavy claims that it going to eliminate all the other protocols that is just hype and smoke.

You don't grasp the complementary aspect. The interfaces for all those pre-existing protocols can be managed by Lightpeak.

I do grasp it. Managing a protocol by simply transporting the signals from one box to another does not remove , change , or supercede the protocol. A USB 2.0 connection routed over LP will be just as fast as USB 2.0 over a normal USB 2.0 cable. You can get complementary attributes to USB by using LP. For example you can extend the distance between the hub and the device ( presuming provide power to the client side if necessary). Likewise you can run USB 2.0 and a Display bitstream over the same wire ( and decode on the both sides back into the underlying protocols). So you get fewer cables.

As long as it the diagram goes from something like.

[usb controller ]------< usb cable >-------[ usb client ]

to

[usb controller]--[LP controller ]---<LP cable >----[LP controller]---[usb cleint]

you are not removing anything. You are only adding components to the system. That will almost always make it more expensive.

Note that as long as the computer still has a usb controller, PCI-e controller, etc. in it then it is trivial to just run a physical connection out to a single protocol specific socket. if there 10 USB connectors, 5 SATA ones , etc. then if you just prune a few off to LP routing, you can still use the rest with extremely minimal cost out to the side of the box.


There is a couple of general approaches Intel could implement this multiprotocol support. One is internally add the legacy ones to the controller. The other is something that just decodes the signals which are routed somehow to the legacy controllers ( by pins and/or other means.)
Neither one of those removes the controllers from the system. All the current properties are still there. You just get complementary properties that LP enables (e.g., distance , fewer cables , room for future compatibility with updated standards with speed improvements if added. )

Intel will transition to Light Peak and by way of this Multi-Protocol chip leave it up to Vendors to offer a pure Light Peak implementation that support legacy interfaces, to a mixed-use version where there is redundancy to support older hardware and firmware.

I don't really buy that first option will be widely taken. If that happened at all it would be way out in the far distance future. Likewise it is extremely doubtful it would happen across the board.

This is a variation on the classic "Embrace , Extended , Extinguish" methodology that folks like Microsoft and others have attempted to use.
The problem for LP is that the mixed use will be the normal mode. As long as the legacy protocols are supported in the core chipset they will always be around.

The other major problem is that a couple of the legacy protocols are fast enough. For devices with dramatically less than 3-5Gbps bandwidth requirements all that extra speed doesn't buy much of anything. Especially if it is only close distances to a singlular device you are trying to traverse (e.g., a small single chip USB Flash drive plugged into a socket on the computer. )

the claim that are going to subsume and eliminate has been trotted out many times before. For instance many years ago written about Firewire:

The IEEE 1394 Firewire standard is increasing in popularity, especially in consumer oriented and desktop products. Should the predictions of Apple, the originators of the Firewire standard, come to fruition, then Firewire will supplant SCSI, IDE, RS-232C, parallel I/O ports and every other manner of digital interface between a motherboard and a peripheral device.

http://www.ausairpower.net/OSR-0201.html

SCSI is still here. It mutated into SAS and iSCSI but still around. I don't think Ethernet , USB , SATA , PCI-e etc. standards committees are just going to throw up their hands and say "we give up.... Sauron's one true ring, LP, will rull them all." Nor will having LP making you automagically forward compatible. If all you have internally is a PCI-e v2.0 controller and there is a PCI-e v4.0 device on the other end ... you are not going to get "v 4.0" in your "2.0" box just because they are connected by LP.


Ethernet can use the exact same optical transceivers that LP is using and already has 10-100Gbps standards. Likewise PCI-e and SATA can pick up optical foundation without picking up the LP protocol overhead. There is a huge pile of USB devices that just don't need the speed at all. 50Gbps LP .... phfffff printer stil runs at exactly same speed.


A decent portion of the LP spin is just hype to get folks to adopt yet another new standard protocol. If they came straight out and said "we just want everyone to adopt something new so you have to buy all new stuff". There would be a very large "forget you" and the protocols would continue to evolve.

So Intel spins it as .... "Oh we are going to get along". Then once have traction enough to get included onto a high enough percentage of boards then get folks to do native LP protocol devices. However, it is extremely dubious that will eliminate all the other sockets. It is far more likely to get LP to the point where it can get enough traction to survive, not subsume , the other protocols. In short "embrace and extend" will work well enough. The " Extinguish...." that isn't going to happen.

There are too many things that Ethernet (the world wide web ) , Infinibate (low latency transfers ) , SATA ( high enough bandwidt) , etc. that LP just don't have a better story for.

Basically for the exact same reason that just about everyone still has a RJ-11 jack in their house (even if have VOIP). 25-30 years about phone companies used stuff like microwave, cables, sat, etc. to move phone traffic. Over time lots of that go multiplexed on to fiber cable. That didn't remove the RJ-11 jacks from folks out. Adapters flips the bits back to the legacy traffic so that still plug into the same old jacks.
(yeah there are internet only VOIP phones, but they are small, small , small percentage of all the phones in use. It will be many years before that changes. )

 

[inlovewithi]

It's funny how many Mac fans are against USB now, and all because Steve said that they're not ready for USB 3. I bet they had no opinion about USB a day earlier.

 

[QuarterSwede]

It's funny how many Mac fans are against USB now, and all because Steve said that they're not ready for USB 3. I bet they had no opinion about USB a day earlier.

I haven't seen many opinions against USB3. They're more about the possible reasons why Apple and Jobs hasn't included it yet.