The more we hear about Intel's
Light Peak optical interconnect, the more it seems like Intel was
playing it way too cool at IDF -- Foci Fiber Optic Communication, which supplied the gear used during
that Hackintosh demo, told
CNET today that pilot manufacturing runs of Light Peak equipment are scheduled for November, with mass production to start in early 2010. That's right on track with what we've seen and been told about
Apple and Intel's plans for the tech, which forecast a line of back-to-school Macs featuring Light Peak in the fall of 2010. And, well, let's not get ahead of ourselves, but Intel was pretty high on Light Peak for devices that needed maximum connectivity in the smallest amount of space, like an iPhone -- or, say,
a tablet. Quite a nice little package of rumors, don't you think? Okay, we'll calm down now.
posted Oct 8th 2009 1:01PM
Now will Light Peak first be seen in Apple computers or PCs?
PCs? Ohhh... you mean PCs running Windows, as opposed to PCs running OS X. What a stupid way of making a distinction. A PC is a PERSONAL COMPUTER.
You're probably going to have to get over that, Jeremy, or spend the rest of your life correcting forum posters who couldn't really give two shits.
@ Jeremy K
He did say Apple Computers, which would be a specific set of PC's. And when he referred to PC's well that would mean all of them, so he is correct saying that.
@Jeremy:
STFU
You know damn well that Windows computers are commonly referred to as PCs. Take a look at the "I'm a PC", and the "Hi! I'm a Mac. I'm a PC."
When was the last time someone referred to a Mac as a PC? Link me to something recent, now.
Nobody thinks you're cool, acting all contrary on the internet.
I'm sure that light peak will be similar to firewire, Apple created and superior to many other options, but not found on all machines. Firewire 400, Firewire 800.. both great interfaces, but not commonly adopted by manufacturers. Maybe light peak will have greater usage because it has Intel's support but we'll have to wait and see.
@ Btblomberg
"The issue with Firewire was it under an Apple license so it was more expensive to get started"
The license for Apple FireWire costs $1.00 so price is definitely not an issue.
"The license for Apple FireWire costs $1.00 so price is definitely not an issue."
Sell millions of PCs each year, and that licensing cost will make you think very hard about whether or not the target demographic will want/need Firewire on one of your models.
$1 may not sound much, but it's quite a lot in market dominated by razor-thin margins.
@L >> "Sell millions of PCs each year, and that licensing cost will make you think very hard about whether or not the target demographic will want/need Firewire on one of your models. $1 may not sound much, but it's quite a lot in market dominated by razor-thin margins."
Well, most Dell and HP laptops over the years have had a 4 pin Firewire port. And they sell a crap-ton of laptops...
Any clue on why they did that?
a mac is a pc since it runs intel chips...
Jeremy K:
Don't let them bring you down. I support you fully on this issue.
I understand if some old lady thinks a Mac is not a PC, but visitors of a technology related site should know better.
And it's incredibly ironic and sad how crawdad689 used the primary cause of this misunderstanding (the Apple ads) as a justification.
...
http://www.pcmech.com/article/reality-check-a-mac-is-a-pc/
I heard from somewhere that the rig was just a Mac Pro taken apart.
Likely. I would expect they just wanted to show of the board/tech inside.
Is this "standard" going to be Apple only?
Will it be possible to make cheap USB 3.0 to Light Peak (or vice versa) adapters?
Can someone correct me if I'm wrong here? The way I've understood it is that Light Peak is essentially the interface to end all interfaces. That everything from hard drives to ethernet cables, to display interfaces, to firewire, to EVERYTHING USB, will be manufactured with this standard. That in the future, computers will simply have a few (or several) Light Peak ports on them, and NO other ports, whatsoever. Is this the case? What's realistic, here?
"That in the future, computers will simply have a few (or several) Light Peak ports on them, and NO other ports, whatsoever. Is this the case?"
It's hard to tell what will be successful in the future, but from a purely tech perspective, it is possible that a new connectivity option might become ubiquitous for multiple types of data.
But I think it's worth noting that firewire800 could also handle networking, peripherals, audio, and displays.
That is the goal of the project. The issue with Firewire was it under an Apple license so it was more expensive to get started and adoption was slow, that made it made it more expensive overall. USB was not. Light Peak is not. Also, in having Intel involved it will go into larger production faster and likely be cheap to have fairly quickly.
Thumb drives, external HD/optical drives, and most importantly USB missile launchers all need juice to operate. Light peak will never overcome USB.
@ Btblomberg
"The issue with Firewire was it under an Apple license so it was more expensive to get started"
The license for Apple FireWire costs $1.00 so price is definitely not an issue.
Stop trolling. One of the major reasons why firewire didn't catch on that much was the licensing costs, $1 a unit is a lot.
@Jeremy: Of course light peak manufacturers are quoted as saying that light peak connectors will include a copper wire along with the fiber optics so power can still be transmitted to devices needing bus power.
Nice try tho.
what do you mean firewire didnt catch on? it was and still is (minus esata) the industry standard for hard drives, and also dont forget video capturing
@ d889 - Firewire is good for analogue video transfer, the rest of the world has moved on to digital. 9 out of every 10 external HDD sold is USB2.0, so where is your industry standard. would it not be USB 2.0???
I am not sure if I am excited about Lightpeak or just concerned that it unnecessarily complicates the market with USB 3.0 arriving soon as well.
That's what I think as well. Why now?
Also, I'm not sure whether a fiber optic-only port is the way forward for a universal port. Those cables aren't exactly taking abuse kindly, the majority of devices take little to no advantage of the high speed (think mice, keyboards, digicams, MP3 players, printers, scanners, or practically everything other than external mass storage, displays and video recording devices and *maybe* networking, one day)...it just seems a lot of fuss for little gain in every day life.
this could in theory replace everything, from networking to displays as well as peripherals and gadgets, and if it gets a push by apple AND intel, it will pretty much become a standard from the off.
lease stop calling the machine a hackentosh - it's a prototype mac pro - see cnet post below
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-10360047-264.html
Light Peak is going to be distributed to both PC's and Mac's right? I hope it will...
Considering it's being developed by Intel, I would have to say yes.
light peak ? fail. the current hardware will not work, imagine buying adapters for each hardware and peripheral you own. thanks but no thanks
The same could have (and was) said about USB when it was introduced...
But he said "fail" in his post! How can you doubt such an eloquent argument?
@Joe:
That's easy. I don't listen to fail arguments.
Didn't Intel dispel those rumors that Apple came up with the technology?
Why are Apple Haters so intent on not giving Apple credit for anything? Oh, right.
Yes, Intel developed the technology, we get it, but at the request of Apple. Not Dell, not HP, not Microsoft. Apple. Apple deserves some kind of credit for this. And if Apple comes out with the tech in their computers before others, it's going to be amusing to see how you guys try to spin it negatively.
? I'm not "intent on not giving Apple credit for anything", CNET reported that the rumors of Apple's involvement were over exaggerated a week after Engadget ran the story: "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."
Intel's director of optical input-output program office also said "We've developed the technology, we've developed the specifications, documenting the technology, and we have prototype product"
The only people who have mentioned Apple are Engadget's "sources". I'm just responding to what information is out there, which shows that Intel probably sent the idea to Apple to let them play around with it, rather than the other way around.
Well, I better go request Intel develop a quantum connection then. I'm sure I will be given my due credit.
Also, if Apple does, in fact, come out with it before other PC companies then I will applaud them(assuming it doesn't break anything horribly; I'm not willing to write a blank check). Just as how right now I appreciate their efforts on the Grand Central and OpenCL technologies which should make multi threading easier and more efficient and allow better use of the GPU.
Why would it surprise you when Intel and Apple doesn't come out and announce that they developed this together? That's how Apple works. They're secretive bastards. The fact that the technology was running on a Mac tells you all you need to know about what company influenced this project.
And this isn't the first time. Remember when Intel developed a processor for the MacBook Air just for Apple Yeah, it eventually was used in competing PCs, but it was designed originally for Apple. So those "sources" Engadget used sound very reliable to me.
Oh, I wouldn't be surprised at all, but the current information out there doesn't show that, and actually suggests that this was an Intel idea from the beginning and that Apple was just one of the manufacturers they were in talks with about it. The fact that they were using a Mac at the conference doesn't really show anything(just as it wouldn't if they had been using, say, a Dell), since they do make chips and whole chipsets for Apple, just like they do for any other manufacturer.
This article explains the whole situation starting with a historical background
Apple is betting on Light Peak with Intel
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/09/30/why-apple-is-betting-on-light-peak-with-intel-a-love-story/
You have got to be kidding. That's the lamest thing I've ever heard. Intel develops BY FAR a greater amount of chips for PCs than they do for Macs and yet, a Mac is what they used to run their new technology. Just think about that. Don't even add your fanboyism to the equation. Common sense should bring you to the logical conclusion.
(Of course, I know it won't)
@I_Love_Microsoft: roughlydrafted=fail. Considering the "facts"(read: outright lies) in the Zune HD article, I'll never believe anything they write. CNET(and Intel themselves) is a much more believable source.
@ Detox
Those of us actually into technology including and outside of Apple stuff know that Intel has been developing this for ages and they are not the only one. USB 3.0 also has an optical standard using fiber.
As usual the Apple lovers who never hear about or understand actual technological research think Apple invents everything. Do you really think Firewire would have been born without Sony ?
not going to hold my breath for this rumor
Am I the only one that thinks that looks like regular old usb? Or is that not an actual picture?
I took that picture at IDF myself -- it's definitely Light Peak!
Well, it kinda is regular old USB, except for the little orange and yellow wires leading to it. Those are the optical fibers.
It does look like it has some metal contacts inside the port. At first I thought "why?" but thinking about it, one of USB's more useful features is its ability to power devices, and Light Peak wouldn't be that useful if external power is always required.
Crazy dream: Want to make everyone happy? Make LP backwards compatible with USB 3.0.
Doesn't USB 3.0 have a fiber channel in it already, so what's the point of a competing cable that can't power the device.
Nevermind, guess should read before I comment... bad me, very bad me.