“An announcement from Apple is expected soon about a new high-speed connection technology, a source told CNET,” Brooke Crothers reports for CNET.
“Whether the new connector tech will be part of the upcoming MacBook Pro update (rumored to happen February 24) or announced in another context is not clear,” Crothers reports. “Intel has been working on a technology called Light Peak for years and recently said the initial version would be based on copper, as practical realities dictate more conventional technology.”
Crothers reports, “Apple is expected to adopt this technology in the near future–but likely use a name other than Light Peak, a source familiar with this aspect of Apple’s plans said… Light Peak is significantly faster than even USB 3.0, carrying data at 10 gigabits per second in both directions simultaneously. Connection speeds will not be affected by the transition to copper, according to Intel.”
Read more in the full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Readers “Fred Mertz” and “Lynn W.” for the heads up.]
Related articles:
Intel: Light Peak is ready to go – January 10, 2011
New Apple patent could show plans for Light Peak adoption – November 30, 2010
Intel: Apple-inspired Light Peak standard will totally replace USB 3.0 within a few years – April 21, 2010
Report: Apple dictated ‘Light Peak’ creation to Intel – September 26, 2009
Bollocks. Let’s have a look at USB3 first.
USB 3 is only slightly faster than FW800 read the benchmarks done by reviewers the allocated 4.3Gbps of USB3 is shared among the bandwidth of its 127 devices on its bus the speed quoted fluctuates due to protocol overhead.
So you don’t actually get the allocated 4.3Gbps all the time like firewire or light peak
USB may be more blood on Apple’s collective hands/
Some have* and it from all I can find about it, it doesn’t look promising.
This is especially true if Apple isn’t behind it. Afterall, it was Apple that made USB ubiquitous in the first place.
* http://www.sevenforums.com/hardware-devices/143311-usb-3-failure.html
Sadly, this will NOT be the completed optical specification for Light Peak. It will only be an interim wire specification, inevitably forcing everyone to pay for Light Peak twice over by having to upgrade to the finished optical specification, if it is ever agreed upon as a standard.
IOW: Complete, actual optical ‘LIGHT’ Peak technology remains VAPORWARE.
(This is easily proven by anyone who bothers to study the subject and does their homework. Please do not attempt to contradict fact as you will only be laughed at by the cognoscenti).
Well, even if the demos that they’ve been showing at IDF events have been copper-based (and a lot of them are available on YouTube), it’s still a pretty impressive technology.
As for the paying for it twice, I doubt it’s a real problem: one of the most likely scenarios for LightPeak is that you’ll use LP to connect to a breakout box which will have your choice of connectors for USB2, USB3, FW800, DisplayPort etc.
For most people, the joy will be running one cable out of their iMac or MBP and then hoping that some enterprising peripheral manufacturer will (at best) develop a docking peripheral stack and (at worst) a range of peripherals that stack neatly with your iPod dock at the top. I know one man – not me – who would actually give up a kidney to lose the clutter on his desk.
What I would like to know is why Apple strangled the baby called FireWire 3200. The spec was finished over two years ago. It’s faster than USB3 and provides more functionality.
Based on information I was able to find out, it looks like LightPeak is a peer-to-peer system (like Firewire, or SCSI), unlike USB, which is a master-slave protocol. If this is true, LightPeak will overcome all those issues USB has been plagued with, for which FireWire continued to live in critical, professional environments, such as RAID, DV (and HDV), etc. Peer-to-peer is significantly better than USB’s master/slave.
Predrag wrote:
“Peer-to-peer is significantly better than USB’s master/slave.”
Oh, the humanity!
Master/slave works best with two consenting adults and just the right amount of leather.
Unless you’re a vegan, in which case it’s more about PVC.
Latex, baby, Latex.
PVC is for plumbing. 😉
Or, if you’re a fan of ‘Allo ‘Allo, wet celery.
Lightpeak may be good for high end applications and connectivity.
But is this really what Apple are really into nowadays. Their consumer-friendly products are selling like hotcakes. How many average consumers are going to need Lightpeak?
Also how many devices are Lightpeak compatible? Basically none.
I see no advantage for Apple to go with this tech. They should implement when compatible devices are available and in use.
Constantly connected devices will benefit.
“They should implement when compatible devices are available and in use?”…
Build it and they shall come.
“They should implement when compatible devices are available and in use”
Yeah, sure. THAT is Apple. Wait for others to lead the way. Open your eyes, dork.
Why didn´t we just stick with the floppy drives (I bet YOU still have one) or the 8 bit address space. Who could ever need more than…
Don’t be a twat. Apple started using USB because their existing connectors were outdated and they needed something better. Remember they provided both the mouse and keyboard when they introduced usb to the iMac.
Competing with Lightpeak is USB, Firewire and also eSATA. There are plenty of alternatives that means Apple doesn’t need to lead the way on this one.
If Apple do adopt it it will be for a specific reason. No one here has suggested a good motivation for adding this to Macs.
The primary goal with LightPeak is to REPLACE all those other ones (USB, FW, eSATA, MiniDisplay, DVI, VGA, etc). The idea is to provide support for pretty much everything you could possibly need in one single standard interface and eliminate ALL other ports from the computing device.
I believe the same idea was behind Apple’s abandoning of legacy systems (SCSI, ADB, Nubus) and embracing USB, 14 years ago.
That sounds interesting but is it ready for use? Working chipsets are needed and at the volume that Apple need for production.
Derek Currie, you’re such a tease! Money, money, money, money, money. . .
This COPPER Peak tech sounds good. I think I would like the LIGHT Peak better. Although, could this connect to a USB by a modified COPPER Peak cable? I know it is not done with Firewire, at least not that I have seen, and may be not comparable with this either. Or maybe Apple will unify as many cables into one cable as they have submitted to the patent office. Then combine the circuits on the inside of the mac to separate the signals That would solve a few issues. Just guessing at best here.
Integrating LightPeak with the power connector reduces ports to 3
1 Power / LightPeak
2 SD memory — Backup Restore
3 Audio — In Out ( already state of art Digital fiber / analogue)
The last two have small form factors
Lead to New Mobiles that make Airs look big!
OH PS
Apple has thought about all you wingers by making a transfer box for USB2 (3?) 1834 etc so that you can use your old stuff till everyone catches up!
What’s a winger? isn’t that a football term? Oh, you mean whinger!
I Know I know I can’t think!
The hold up is Intel!
Intel loves LightPeak so much that it wants it for itself as the Sata replacement on the mother board!!
Its working on a super fast server with 10+ core CPU connectors of lightpeak modified to their copyrighted standards with 100+ “lightpeak” connectors to memory..
The cruncher that puts the icing on Intel’s cake is its own OS designed with the help of the virus company they bought!
Perfect security, super small foot print, super fast running super power efficient and
“All mine All Mine” ops all Intel’s.
And ALL mother boards would end up using Intel’s propriety “lightPeak”
So why help Apple when we can help ourselves (Intel)
And eventually charge Apple heaps as well as all PCs
“Light Peak is significantly faster than even USB 3.0, carrying data …….. in both directions simultaneously.” which is why ‘LightPeak’ and FireWire will always be faster than any form of USB.
I don’t get it. The article quotes Jason Ziller, Intel’s Light Peak manager, as saying: “if the native protocols that you’re running on top of it are also running at 10 gigabits per second, or something close to that, then the effective bandwidth for a device on the other end would be equivalent to that (10Gb/s). If the protocol is running less than that (e.g., USB 2.0), it’s just kind of riding on Light Peak but the effective transfer rate would be equivalent to the native protocol (like USB or FireWire).”
Am I mistaken, or is he saying that Light Peak only delivers super-fast data transfer if another>/i> protocol of nearly equal speed is running on top of it? What good is that?
Like the adage: A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
Think about it.
The biggest and best thing about Lightpeak technology is that it just provides the hardware for doing everything. What this means is that you can transfer anything and everything over it bidirectionally, and it becomes a standardized cable for everyone to use, regardless of application. It can be used for networking, peripherals, flash drives, display technology, etc… no separate HDMI, DVI, Ethernet, or all that crap. with 3-4 “omni” connectors, the macbook pro would be a fantastic machine!
I hope so. I can’t stand all the connectors I’ve had to deal with over the years. One to rule them all.
Cheers!