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."

Transfer faster!

[Murdoch5]

I can move my special video (porn) collection in 3 second!!!!

Apple's Legacy

[j00bhaka]

Will the component be shiny and white also?

Put it on iPods

[CharlyFoxtrot]

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

Compete with who?

[poptones]

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!

Re:Put it on iPods

[tinkertim]

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

Well, looking at the diagram, dongles to connect USB and other types would be the means to do that. Personally, if it works as well as they say that it works, I'd be opting for gadgets and devices that just support it natively.

Re:Transfer faster!

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Not miniature enough

[DTemp]

As soon as the industry settles on Light Peak... Apple will start using the Mini Light Peak connector, which will join the list of other connectors that they minified or adopted:

-Mini DVI
-Micro DVI
-Mini VGA
-Mini Display Port
-Mini Toslink

Re:No power transfer..

[noidentity]

USB now a days is often used to charge devices too, which is not possible with these optical interfaces.

Here's an optical interface that can transfer lots of power: C02 laser [wikipedia.org]. You wouldn't want to feel around the back of a computer with one of these behind one of the interface connectors, though.

Re:Compete with who?

[PopeRatzo]

Don't you know Apple is behind every new technology ever conceived?

If something new comes out and sounds promising, you can bet we'll see a story, either here or in Conde Nast's "Wired", that "Apple is really behind it".

They are the Chuck Norris of technology companies.

Re:No power transfer..

[roystgnr]

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!

Re:No power transfer..

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

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

Re:No power transfer..

[Anonymous Coward]

He forgot the full stop!

Cables can be longer. Or just.

I'm all for fairness in my cables. Maybe this is a step towards hardware enforced network neutrality?

Re:You keep using that phrase, "goes without sayin

[node 3]

what you clearly meant to say was "bears repeating"

Well, yeah. That goes without saying.

Move the computer to the basement

[Dr. Spork]

Since the cable can be 100 feet (30+ m), I'd put my computer in the basement, put even bigger fans on it and overclock it a bit more. Then I'd run a cable to my living room TV and bedrooms, so that the whole house can simultaneously use a single computer from many different local monitors/keyboards. It's pretty damn elegant and efficient if you ask me. Since you only need one computer for the house, it's worth it to make it awesome: Multiple CPU sockets, multiple GPUs - this is stuff that has entered the mainstream already. I know there has been work done on making use of non-matching GPU's (article [slashdot.org]). Now if they could design CPUs to also be on their own little daugterboards like graphics cards are, and huge motherboards with a dozen open slots... then we could just keep adding stuff to our system, and only throw out the weakest stuff once our slots are filled. Motherboards "do" less and less each generation, because more and more is being merged onto the CPU die. Once motherboards become little more than chip-connecting wires, this monstrous fantasy will be complete. I know a lego computer like this would be insanely fast but huge and ugly, which is exactly why it must be in the basement. And since it will be in the basement and producing heat, somebody should design it so that it heats my water!