Steve Jobs: USB 3 Not Taking Off At This Time

[KnightWRX]

Intel had no idea, which is why we caught them flat-footed with k8. Their only 64bit plan was itanium (with the cbox to run x86 badly).

Similarly we had no idea k8 would win, but we had no license for Itanium, so we did what we could.

I think this illustrates even more why USB3 has a much better chance than LightPeak at winning the consumer market. Itanium had no backwards compatibility really. The emulation it did to run ia-32 had poor performance and too big a trade-off.

By contrast, x86-64 brought backwards compatibility with up to par performance and also brought the new 64 bit goodness. USB3 is the same. For the consumer, all his current crap still works as did the day before and he gets all the new crap that USB3 brings. LightPeak ? ... well, change out all your hardware for new one... yeah... consumers are going to just love that.

What is that you say ? Dongles ? ...

 

[lilo777]

To summarize this thread:

* USB 3.0 is obviously better (and backward compatible) than USB 2.0
* use of separate controller chip might cause marginal increase in laptop size (no impact on desktops) with no negative impact
* use of USB 3.0 has no meaningful impact on the cost of the computer (seeing as USB 3.0 now is being used even in such price-sensitive market sector as netbooks)
* cost of redesign is very low (again, use of USB 3.0 in netbooks indicates just that)
* potential increase in power consumption is not a factor even for laptops. This increase would probably happen only when USB 3.0 peripheral device is used (otherwise user can always use USB 2.0 port - which all laptops have in addition to USB 3.0). In any case, suggested 1W tax is rather negligible.
* consumer would clearly be better off with USB 3.0 (than USB 2.0). The change brings significant benefits and absolutely no downside.
* Apple being Apple, they are too greedy to pay for required R&D as long as there is no obvious impact on sales.

 

[cmaier]

* use of separate controller chip might cause marginal increase in laptop size (no impact on desktops) with no negative impact
* cost of redesign is very low (again, use of USB 3.0 in netbooks indicates just that)
* potential increase in power consumption is not a factor even for laptops. This increase would probably happen only when USB 3.0 peripheral device is used (otherwise user can always use USB 2.0 port - which all laptops have in addition to USB 3.0). In any case, suggested 1W tax is rather negligible.

1W is not negligible. The costs are not negligible. And the impact is not "none." You get the facts right, but then draw exactly the wrong conclusions from them.

 

[derek]

* Apple being Apple, they are too greedy to pay for required R&D as long as there is no obvious impact on sales.

TROLL.

Why do trolls go out of their way to visit Mac specific forums, then vent their abusive FUD? It has to be a form of psychopathy! Does anyone know the cure, besides biting their teeny little heads off?

 

[Rodimus Prime]

I think this illustrates even more why USB3 has a much better chance than LightPeak at winning the consumer market. Itanium had no backwards compatibility really. The emulation it did to run ia-32 had poor performance and too big a trade-off.

By contrast, x86-64 brought backwards compatibility with up to par performance and also brought the new 64 bit goodness. USB3 is the same. For the consumer, all his current crap still works as did the day before and he gets all the new crap that USB3 brings. LightPeak ? ... well, change out all your hardware for new one... yeah... consumers are going to just love that.

What is that you say ? Dongles ? ...

which is what I have been saying.
Light Peak will be great for hi speed file transfers and completely killing off firewire.
I can see light peak replacing display ports on laptops in time because they can move all of the data needed with less power which means less heat to have to deal with. Power is not so much an issue when using external monitors since most of the the time the laptop would be plug in but heat is always an issue.

The light peak would allow one to plug stuff into the monitor instead of having the monitor have to have 2-3 cords connecting back to the computer (display, USB, firewire) 1 light peak cord to cover them all.

 

[lilo777]

1W is not negligible. The costs are not negligible. And the impact is not "none." You get the facts right, but then draw exactly the wrong conclusions from them.

As I mentioned, this 1W is only used when USB 3.0 periphery is in use. Even then it would probably save battery life because, say, copying 200GB to external hard drive, would be 5 times faster compared to USB 2.0 and this means that Apple laptop has to power external drive for much longer.

If ASUS can "afford" to put USB 3.0 into netbook, how much do you think it cost them? Yes, they probably lost a buck or two in profits (per one netbook) which they will recoup by increasing sales. I do not see the point in arguing about the cost. With Apple sale volumes it must be negligible.

What kind of impact do you see in using USB 3.0 (other than positive, of course )?

 

[AidenShaw]

TROLL.

But, is he wrong?

An ad hominem attack against the messenger rather than an argument to the message usually means that the attacker knows that he is losing the argument.

 

[Berlepsch]

* USB 3.0 is obviously better (and backward compatible) than USB 2.0
* use of separate controller chip might cause marginal increase in laptop size (no impact on desktops) with no negative impact
* use of USB 3.0 has no meaningful impact on the cost of the computer (seeing as USB 3.0 now is being used even in such price-sensitive market sector as netbooks)
* cost of redesign is very low (again, use of USB 3.0 in netbooks indicates just that)
* potential increase in power consumption is not a factor even for laptops. This increase would probably happen only when USB 3.0 peripheral device is used (otherwise user can always use USB 2.0 port - which all laptops have in addition to USB 3.0). In any case, suggested 1W tax is rather negligible.
* consumer would clearly be better off with USB 3.0 (than USB 2.0). The change brings significant benefits and absolutely no downside.
* Apple being Apple, they are too greedy to pay for required R&D as long as there is no obvious impact on sales.

I think this sums it up more or less. Only that I believe that Apple will add USB 3 support to the OS X kernel when Lion comes out. By that time, Intel's chipsets will have USB 3 support, and it is still not too late for Apple to jump aboard.

 

[Fraaaa]

As I mentioned, this 1W is only used when USB 3.0 periphery is in use. Even then it would probably save battery life because, say, copying 200GB to external hard drive, would be 5 times faster compared to USB 2.0 and this means that Apple laptop has to power external drive for much longer.

If ASUS can "afford" to put USB 3.0 into netbook, how much do you think it cost them? Yes, they probably lost a buck or two in profits (per one netbook) which they will recoup by increasing sales. I do not see the point in arguing about the cost. With Apple sale volumes it must be negligible.

What kind of impact do you see in using USB 3.0 (other than positive, of course )?

LightPeak, 1 BD in less than 30sec. Possible release in 2011.
Substitute for USB, FireWire, HDMI, and other ports.

Why would you like to have USB3?

 

[Fraaaa]

I think this illustrates even more why USB3 has a much better chance than LightPeak at winning the consumer market. Itanium had no backwards compatibility really. The emulation it did to run ia-32 had poor performance and too big a trade-off.

By contrast, x86-64 brought backwards compatibility with up to par performance and also brought the new 64 bit goodness. USB3 is the same. For the consumer, all his current crap still works as did the day before and he gets all the new crap that USB3 brings. LightPeak ? ... well, change out all your hardware for new one... yeah... consumers are going to just love that.

What is that you say ? Dongles ? ...

What do you have to change?
LightPeak concept has been made to replace all the current most used ports into one. So that people doesn't have to go mad thinking FireWire or USB or else. Just use the same port. Done.

 

[Cougarcat]

What do you have to change?
LightPeak concept has been made to replace all the current most used ports into one. So that people doesn't have to go mad thinking FireWire or USB or else. Just use the same port. Done.

You missed his point. You have to change peripherals, since LightPeak is not backwards compatible. I don't think USB 3.0 or LightPeak should be thought of as mutually exclusive. The best option is a combination of USB 3 and LightPeak, at least for a few years until LightPeak takes off.

 

[euphuistical]

What do you have to change?
LightPeak concept has been made to replace all the current most used ports into one. So that people doesn't have to go mad thinking FireWire or USB or else. Just use the same port. Done.

For something that doesn't exist yet (at least as a consumer product) you don't have to change anything, you're right.

There is no reason to not be getting a computer now without USB3. It is no bigger, is an order of magnitude faster than USB2 and backwards compatible. I mean how can anyone be justify the lack of it.

Now, for speculation like everyone else in this thread: by the time LP even has a release date USB3 will be standard on most external devices that need them (external HDDs being the main concern for me and probably most people, but I am sure there will be other applications. I just sold my iMac to get a desktop PC mainly because I didn't want to face the next 3 years with no upgrade options. It kept 75% of its value to a reseller site after a year, so I thank apple for that. And don't get my wrong, I loved the display and process, hated the graphics cards and limited ports and the fact that I would never even have the option for even eSATA (or SATA 3.0 which I have now) or USB3 or LP, extra HDDs, and a desperately needed upgraded GPU.

So now I have my MBP 15 incher which I am typing on now (which I love, by the way) and a sweet ass PC desktop with a display that is smaller but a better ratio than the iMac and comparable in quality (though the fact that mine is much smaller and has a 2ms refresh sorta take them outa comparison).

So I am happy with apple mobile products, though when I upgrade laptops what I get will likely depend on where I am working.

And I am just too much of a gamer to give up and go iMac and too smart to get a Mac Pro for that reason.

I am looking forward to getting the iPhone 4 or hopefully 5 in August when I get an upgrade.

I guess what I am saying is that if this is an issue for you (it sure as hell was one for me, I need access to multiple HDDs in my desktop, an upgradable system for GPUs and and new ports you need to jump ship to a Winblows or Linux box for awhile. Hopefully LP will be one of those ports I can get, but I am sure as hell not doing without in the interim while just praying they come.


I sure as hell want a consumer lvl mac pro like tower coupled with an iMac like display (though bump the refresh down to 2ms, there is steam for mac afterall)

 

[Fraaaa]

You missed his point. You have to change peripherals, since LightPeak is not backwards compatible. I don't think USB 3.0 or LightPeak should be thought of as mutually exclusive. The best option is a combination of USB 3 and LightPeak, at least for a few years until LightPeak takes off.

There might be a misunderstanding. Backward compatible with what?

 

[AidenShaw]

There is no reason to not be getting a computer now without USB3. It is no bigger, is an order of magnitude faster than USB2 and backwards compatible. I mean how can anyone be justify[ing] the lack of it.

Steve said so - no need to think.

There might be a misunderstanding. Backward compatible with what?

Backward compatible with anything.

What device that you have today can you plug into a Light Peak port? None.

Any USB device that you have today you can plug into a USB 3 port.

 

[Burger Thing]

I would like to assume that Apple has product cycles in which updates are planned and set well in advance. Most likely rolleyes they will have contracts with different companies/vendors/suppliers for a given time period covering that product cycle. I would not be surprised if Apple had an agreement with Intel to use an USB 3 controller from a different company like NEC.

Probably the next updates of Macs with SB CPUs in early 2011 will include USB3s.

But to suggest that Apple wold simply add 3mm to their laptops (maybe in an additional upgrade cycle) to accommodate an additional controller chip like some of the geniuses here posted, would be, especially given the unibody designs of laptops, totally insane.

Funny also, and a typical MR Phenomenon, whenever there is a slightly controversy topic about Apple, you have the same 3 -4 haters coming out of the woods, getting all worked up

 

[Fraaaa]

For something that doesn't exist yet (at least as a consumer product) you don't have to change anything, you're right.

There is no reason to not be getting a computer now without USB3. It is no bigger, is an order of magnitude faster than USB2 and backwards compatible. I mean how can anyone be justify the lack of it.

(...)

Of course if a PC does have USB3 why getting the USB2? I do understand that.

But Apple is -as you know- more selective. Intel is not supporting it yet, in fact they said that USB3 wasn't a priority for them at the moment. And I think as Intel is developing LP, and Apple has probably a dialogue with them over it, I reckon is quite silly if Apple is going to support USB3 for a 1 generation and switch to LP right after. Especially when LP is faster and can have a protocol that supports USB3.

 

[AidenShaw]

Especially when LP is faster and can have a protocol that supports USB3.

Let me clarify that

Especially when LP is faster and can have a protocol and an extra-cost dongle that supports USB3​

The existing USB 2.0 ports become USB 3.0 ports - nothing lost, all your USB 2.0 and older device can connect. Newer USB 3.0 devices connect and run at the higher speed.

*Add* a Light Peak port or two, for new generation high bandwidth devices. Keep the USB 3.0 ports.

Win-win.

 

[Fraaaa]

LightPeak, 1 BD in less than 30sec. Possible release in 2011.
Substitute for USB, FireWire, HDMI, and other ports.

Why would you like to have USB3?

Steve said so - no need to think.




Backward compatible with anything.

What device that you have today can you plug into a Light Peak port? None.

Any USB device that you have today you can plug into a USB 3 port.

Wrong.

Light Peak also has the ability to run multiple protocols simultaneously over a single cable, enabling the technology to connect devices such as peripherals, displays, disk drives, docking stations, and more. . Light Peak components are expected to begin to become available to customers in late 2010, and Intel expects to see Light Peak in PCs and peripherals in 2011.

Today, if you want to plug a display into PC one needs a display cable plugged into a display connector. Likewise if one was to plug a projector into a PC a different projector cable and connector are needed. Not so with Light Peak, because the Light Peak controller implements multi-protocol.

The multi-protocol capability the controller implements is an innovative new technology that will enable new usage models like flexible system designs and thinner form factors, media creation and connectivity, faster media transfer and cable simplification. As end users rely more on their PC’s and CE devices as they go mobile, they want smaller and thinner form factors.

Intel is planning to supply the controller chip and is working with optical component manufacturers to make Light Peak components ready to ship in late 2010, and expects complete systems in 2011. Light Peak is complementary to existing I/O technologies, as it enables them to run together on a single cable at higher speeds.





Hopefully you will get the idea that are you still making an argument over USB 3.0 without the understanding of what LightPeak is.

 

[KnightWRX]

There might be a misunderstanding. Backward compatible with what?

All the USB2 peripherals you'd have to change switching to LightPeak which you wouldn't switching to USB3.

Let's go over this very simple to understand point again :

USB3 is backwards compatible with USB2.
LightPeak is not backwards compatible with USB2.

Your current USB printer works in a USB3 port.
Your current USB printer doesn't work in a LightPeak port.

Get it now ?

Hopefully you will get the idea that are you still making an argument over USB 3.0 without the understanding of what LightPeak is.

And you're not getting what is meant by "having to purchase all these new LightPeak peripherals because none of your current ones work with LightPeak".

 

[Fraaaa]

Let me clarify that

Especially when LP is faster and can have a protocol and an extra-cost dongle that supports USB3​

The existing USB 2.0 ports become USB 3.0 ports - nothing lost, all your USB 2.0 and older device can connect. Newer USB 3.0 devices connect and run at the higher speed.

*Add* a Light Peak port or two, for new generation high bandwidth devices. Keep the USB 3.0 ports.

Win-win.

However, you misused the word backward compatibility.

I do prefer having a dongle and having one port type only that multiple ports that I might not even use.

And I do prefer LP over USB 3.0 if that is faster.

And if is coming as soon as expected USB 3.0 is going to be the next HD-DVD.

Plus I reckon USB might die if LP is this useful. Maybe not soon, perhaps it may even stay.

Of course this is my opinion.

 

[Fraaaa]

All the USB2 peripherals you'd have to change switching to LightPeak which you wouldn't switching to USB3.

Let's go over this very simple to understand point again :

USB3 is backwards compatible with USB2.
LightPeak is not backwards compatible with USB2.

Your current USB printer works in a USB3 port.
Your current USB printer doesn't work in a LightPeak port.

Get it now ?




And you're not getting what is meant by "having to purchase all these new LightPeak peripherals because none of your current ones work with LightPeak".

If technology has to be managed like you think, than we could have kept the PS/2. Let's not progress, ever.

 

[KnightWRX]

If technology has to be managed like you think, than we could have kept the PS/2. Let's not progress, ever.

Except USB3 offers progress while maintaining current peripheral compatibility, easing the transition. What's the downside exactly ? Look, in the end, the best technology doesn't always win. Sometimes, convenience wins out. VHS over Beta, USB over Firewire, there's plenty of examples out there.

By your logic, we should throw away perfectly good working hardware every 3 years just to please some corporate overload. Do I really need LightPeak bandwidth for a mouse and keyboard ?

 

[firestarter]

Is it possible for you to have a discussion with someone without using the disrespectful and inflammatory "rolleyes"?

Just sayin'

 

[Fraaaa]

This is what your fuss is about:

LightPeak has USB-style port.

LightPeak to HDMI dongle.

Is this a problem? Really?

LP might become a standard really fast, don't you think? Then you won't need dongles anyways.

 

[KnightWRX]

Is it possible for you to have a discussion with someone without using the disrespectful and inflammatory "rolleyes"?

Just sayin'

No, I happen to like the rolleyes. Maybe ask the admins or mods to remove it if you don't like it ?

I happen to rolleyes IRL a lot reading this forum sometimes.

LightPeak to HDMI dongle.

Is this a problem? Really?

LP might become a standard really fast, don't you think? Then you won't need dongles anyways.

No, I don't think. I think USB3 will win out on convenience alone. Dongles ? Really... (I gotta use rolleyes here, sorry).