[Moogs]

http://www.macrumors.com/2010/11/04/...-at-forefront/

I haven't had time to read up on this but will Lightpeak be mostly used for external peripherals, or more likely as a replacement (in time) for both internal and external I/O interfaces (replacing SCSI, SATA, etc)? What do you think the first Apple products would be most likely to be? Mac Pro and Macbook Pro with external Lightpeak connection ports, then down the road, internal as well, once driver makers catch up? Other than pro creatives I can't really imagine too many people who would need this kind of speed performance out of a storage device, so pro hardware seems the most obvious choice.

Although it *would* be cool to have cameras and camera card readers to operate at uber-speeds. Anyone could benefit from that. Imagine transferring 100s of 12MP+ photo files to your drive in just a few seconds. Although I imagine there would have to be a bottleneck at the point of the slower device. Maybe with SSDs though not such a big deal?

[Frank777]

The MacBook Pro will be first.

Jobs won't be able to resist the urge to shout 'One cable to rule them all!" and showcase the fact that plugging in one cable docks your portable to your screen, keyboard, internet, speakers, printer and hard drives.

[Maciej]

Originally Posted by Frank777 The MacBook Pro will be first. Jobs won't be able to resist the urge to shout 'One cable to rule them all!" and showcase the fact that plugging in one cable docks your portable to your screen, keyboard, internet, speakers, printer and hard drives.

*drools*

[Brad]

Minus "screen" we already have that with USB.

[Bonn89]

I think (think, I'm probably wrong) that Lightpeak's bandwidth theoretically would allow you to connect ALL those devices (screen, keyboard, internet, speakers, printer and hard drives) using only one physical connection.

I'm imagining a Lightpeak equipped Cinema Display with USB ports, audio jacks, and even an ethernet port. Leave your keyboard/mouse/speakers/ethernet cable attached to the display, and connect it all to your MacBook through a single Lightpeak cable coming out of the back of the display.

Of course... I'm probably 100% wrong. I didn't do my homework, I'll admit it.

But it would be cool if you could do it, amiright?

[wtd]

A Cinema Display would be one place to do that, but if they want it to gt off the ground, they're going to have to ship a relatively inexpensive and small docking station.

[Maciej]

What does the docking station do?

The LightPeak port on you computer is standard LightPeak, the other end of the cable has USB/mDP/DVI/FW - whichever, all four. That's the big idea. Theres an interface in the plug that handles the conversion from USB to Lightpeak so everything else down the line doesn't matter. You don't need a dock because the LightPeak cable connects to your USB port anyway. Only problem is it could get sloppy if you octopus out the cable too much.

AFAIK.

[Frank777]

Originally Posted by Brad Minus "screen" we already have that with USB.

Yes, but Jobs will convince that using two cables creates an unwieldy, inelegant situation. And we will believe him.

I haven't even heard the keynote yet, and I'm wondering how I can rewire my home with LightPeak.

[wtd]

Originally Posted by Maciej What does the docking station do? The LightPeak port on you computer is standard LightPeak, the other end of the cable has USB/mDP/DVI/FW - whichever, all four. That's the big idea. Theres an interface in the plug that handles the conversion from USB to Lightpeak so everything else down the line doesn't matter. You don't need a dock because the LightPeak cable connects to your USB port anyway. Only problem is it could get sloppy if you octopus out the cable too much. AFAIK.

It seems that everyone's betting on the appeal of LightPeak being having a single port on the computer. In that case you'd either need a docking station with multiple outputs or some kind of octopus cable to connect multiple devices at once. With the latter you get into the problem of fitting every peripheral within range or having unused "tentacles" when you don't actually need to use all of those devices.

Alternatively, you could put one port on the computer and assume the use of a single peripheral or one with a hub; or augment LightPeak with a bunch of conventional USB ports (but that seems to defeat the purpose); or simply put several LightPeak ports on the computer, but that seems less elegant than the vision we've been given and might not be cost-effective (do we know how LP controllers will handle this?)

[Brad]

"Docking station" is highfalutin talk for "USB hub"

[noone]

Will the LightPeak connectors only ever be on one end of the cable? Or will in due course peripherals also have LightPeak connectors? If so, will it then be possible to daisy-chain peripherals just like with Firewire (which would avoid the octopus cables ...)?

[rollercoaster375]

Originally Posted by noone Will the LightPeak connectors only ever be on one end of the cable? Or will in due course peripherals also have LightPeak connectors? If so, will it then be possible to daisy-chain peripherals just like with Firewire (which would avoid the octopus cables ...)?

Light Peak fully supports Daisy Chaining.

[drewprops]

What does the connector look like?

[scratt]

I hope it looks like the top picture on this page : http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-10...?tag=mncol;txt

I think this will be in desktop machines first.

And Apple are just drooling over all the various cludges they can sell you to be able to use it.

It is going to be a nightmare, and the wailing and screaming will be very loud, if / when they make this the standard on MBPs etc. And without it being the only port on them it's going to suffer the same way FireWire did.

It's a difficult proposition.... Make it the only connector = disaster. Make it one of many = flop.

I also hope it is less flakey than FireWire was in the early days, especially as it daisy-chains.

In a sentence I think this could flop quite badly. It will only really work when the connector becomes standard for all devices and protocols and even though we are say plugging in a USB device here, or a monitor there, it is all just one universal plug that fits a Light Peak slot. But I don't see that kind of vision becoming a reality for a long time yet.

At the end of the day the best thing is for everyone to decide on one protocol, and one type of plug, and move forward. But we've been there before, and that isn't going to happen until there is one company in charge of everything in the whole world! Perhaps that is Steve's plan after all!

[Moogs]

So I ask again, is this something that can potentially replace our *internal* I/O interfaces as well as external (like USB and FW)? IOW replace SCSI and SATA?

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Moogs So I ask again, is this something that can potentially replace our *internal* I/O interfaces as well as external (like USB and FW)? IOW replace SCSI and SATA?

Potentially? Yes. Actually? Why would anyone know?

[Maciej]

I haven't seen the actual plug, but from the outside it looks like a USB plug, AFAICT.

This is the image I'm referring to.

[chucker]

I'm disappointed it isn't "LP"-shaped, though.

[Moogs]

Originally Posted by chucker Potentially? Yes. Actually? Why would anyone know?

Because if it were designed to replace SCSI and SATA, people would know about it? As opposed to being designed to replace USB or FW only. But it sounds like an uber-connection technology that can change the game as far as how any peripheral is connected to our CPUs.

[Frank777]

Hasn't optical always been the Holy Grail of connectivity?

I think SCSI's been going down for some time, and Lightpeak shouldn't have trouble beating SATA (at least on Macs.)

We know Firewire is headed for the heap.
USB3 is Lightpeak's biggest competitor, but since it's possible to run USB3 over Lightpeak, Macs won't lose anything in that fight.

If both Intel and Apple see LP eventually besting USB3, I think it's virtually assured of winning.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Moogs Because if it were designed to replace SCSI and SATA, people would know about it?

SCSI and SATA are far more than mere connectors, though. I don't see Light Peak becoming versatile enough to have its own version of, say, TRIM. (And why would it?)

As for the connectors? Maybe.

Originally Posted by Frank777 I think SCSI's been going down for some time,

SAS (Serial-attached SCSI) is still the preferred standard for high-end hard drives.

Originally Posted by Frank777 If both Intel and Apple see LP eventually besting USB3, I think it's virtually assured of winning.

Both Intel and Apple were supporting UDI and, uhhhh, yeah, not so much. We have the competing DisplayPort now, after all.

[Frank777]

Originally Posted by chucker SAS (Serial-attached SCSI) is still the preferred standard for high-end hard drives.

Yes, but I was thinking more about Lightpeak's taking over the general market, where SATA, USB and Firewire live.
I don't know too much about the high-end.

And I still get shivers thinking about having termination errors with my SCSI scanner circa 1995.

Originally Posted by chucker Both Intel and Apple were supporting UDI and, uhhhh, yeah, not so much. We have the competing DisplayPort now, after all.

True. But Intel is USB's CREATOR. If they see Lightpeak as a better standard, that will carry a lot of weight in the tech world.

I understand that the PC makers are all talking FUD about Lightpeak's chances against USB3, but that's because they are largely a bunch of followers who have yet to see the product in the wild. When Chinese factories start pumping out Lightpeak products, I think the tide will turn quickly.

[Eugene]

USB 3.0 will replace USB 2.0 ports...you'll still have between 6-10 of them on your typical PC and that's not even up for debate. Light Peak, you'll probably see just 1-2 ports available on the first PCs to test the waters; It'll end up being used almost exclusively with high-bandwidth devices. USB 3.0 will be capable of sustaining high transfer rates for mass storage devices, but will continue to be used primarily for peripherals, dongles, personal electronics, etc.

[joveblue]

Originally Posted by Eugene USB 3.0 will replace USB 2.0 ports...you'll still have between 6-10 of them on your typical PC and that's not even up for debate.

It's not? Care to elaborate?

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Eugene USB 3.0 will replace USB 2.0 ports...you'll still have between 6-10 of them on your typical PC and that's not even up for debate.

AIUI, Intel chipsets still don't feature USB 3.0 ports, so for the time being, it is up for debate.

[Dorian Gray]

Eugene must be referring to tower-based desktop PCs, which he thinks are still relevant for reasons he's keeping to himself.

Judging by early Sony and Samsung notebooks which have a combination of USB 2.0 and USB 3.0 ports, it might take a while for USB 3.0 to completely dominate. However, why wouldn't it eventually? It's a meaningful improvement over USB 2.0 and probably dirt cheap to implement.

[Eugene]

Originally Posted by chucker AIUI, Intel chipsets still don't feature USB 3.0 ports, so for the time being, it is up for debate.

*Bzzt*

The Intel 6-series chipsets support 14 USB 3.0 ports, so no...it really isn't. You're going to get those ports no matter what. If you own a MBP, then sure, you may only see one Light Peak port and 2-3 USB 3.0 ports. If you own an iMac you'll probably see one Light Peak and 4-5 USB 3.0 ports. Mac Pros will probably have two Light Peak and 5-6 USB 3.0 ports.

Originally Posted by Dorian Gray Eugene must be referring to tower-based desktop PCs, which he thinks are still relevant for reasons he's keeping to himself. Judging by early Sony and Samsung notebooks which have a combination of USB 2.0 and USB 3.0 ports, it might take a while for USB 3.0 to completely dominate. However, why wouldn't it eventually? It's a meaningful improvement over USB 2.0 and probably dirt cheap to implement.

Shocking I know, but many people still use towers. Gamers also use towers. It's a $11B dollar industry just on the software side and if you brought in figures for all the hardware being sold, that number would be eclipsed a few times. If you walk into a Best Buy or Fry's, you'll find that the desktop section is just as big as the laptop section...people like bang for the buck, and if they have no need for portability why would they consider a laptop? Isn't that the point to sell as many different devices for different home uses as possible? AppleTV for television, iPads for the couch, iPhone for when you're upright, laptops for the coffee table and the desktop for your workdesk.

I own a 13" MacBook for the sake of portability, but I use my desktops (two of them) 90% of the time.

It doesn't matter...the point was that USB 3.0 is coming with Sandy Bridge and the chipset provides enough USB 3.0 channels as Apple and other system integrators want to implement. Sandy Bridge motherboards will probably leak out to retail this month or next (ahead of CES on January 9th.)

Hell, if Apple really wanted to be bold they'd cut out FireWire 800 altogether. It is no longer relevant except for backward compatibility.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Eugene *Bzzt* The Intel 6-series chipsets support 14 USB 3.0 ports, so no...it really isn't. You're going to get those ports no matter what. If you own a MBP, then sure, you may only see one Light Peak port and 2-3 USB 3.0 ports. If you own an iMac you'll probably see one Light Peak and 4-5 USB 3.0 ports. Mac Pros will probably have two Light Peak and 5-6 USB 3.0 ports.

Why would you "bzzt" me on vaporware? AFAICT, those chipsets aren't even listed on Intel's website yet. How exactly does that invalidate "Intel chipsets still don't feature USB 3.0 ports"? Which current one does?

Originally Posted by Eugene Shocking I know, but many people still use towers. Gamers also use towers. It's a $11B dollar industry just on the software side and if you brought in figures for all the hardware being sold, that number would be eclipsed a few times. If you walk into a Best Buy or Fry's, you'll find that the desktop section is just as big as the laptop section...people like bang for the buck, and if they have no need for portability why would they consider a laptop? Isn't that the point to sell as many different devices for different home uses as possible? AppleTV for television, iPads for the couch, iPhone for when you're upright, laptops for the coffee table and the desktop for your workdesk.

The market segment for high-performance desktops (and USB 3.0 certainly counts as high performance) is shrinking fast.

Originally Posted by Eugene Hell, if Apple really wanted to be bold they'd cut out FireWire 800 altogether. It is no longer relevant except for backward compatibility.

Right. I bet audio and video manufacturers will get right on that.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by Eugene that's not even up for debate.

Originally Posted by Eugene *Bzzt*

Originally Posted by Eugene Shocking I know, but

Can you, um, lose the attitude?

Originally Posted by Eugene Gamers also use towers. It's a $11B dollar industry just on the software side

And that's all software for towers, because laptops run different software...?

Have you looked at the PC gaming industry lately? The areas of growth are browser-based games, casual games, and free-to-play MMOs. None of those are aimed at people with big "gaming rigs." For everybody who is not Blizzard, "gamer" PC gaming hasn't been doing too well. And it's not like World of Warcraft is incapable of running on a laptop.

[Eugene]

Originally Posted by chucker Why would you "bzzt" me on vaporware? AFAICT, those chipsets aren't even listed on Intel's website yet. How exactly does that invalidate "Intel chipsets still don't feature USB 3.0 ports"? Which current one does?

Oh please. Unless you think Intel is suddenly going to go bankrupt in the next 2 months, USB 3.0 will be in practically every new laptop and desktop starting in January. USB 3.0 devices and PCs are already out at retail. You can call it vaporware if you want, but none of us are actually going to have a choice in the matter. It will be in our Macs and PCs this winter no matter what kind of perverse spin you try to put on it. Light Peak won't even start trickling onto systems until the end of 2011.

The market segment for high-performance desktops (and USB 3.0 certainly counts as high performance) is shrinking fast.

So USB 3.0 won't appear on Macs and PCs even though it's built into Intel's impending chipset? What the hell are you trying to say?

Right. I bet audio and video manufacturers will get right on that.

They have been, for a long time... 400/800Mbps vs .48/5Gbps. USB 3.0 also supplies more power to devices than USB 2.0, so any real-world advantage that FireWire had is now gone. What do you think the sales ratio of video devices that use USB 2.0 vs FireWire is now? Devices like those from RED use USB 2.0, FireWire AND eSATA. Consumer level camcorders almost exclusively use USB 2.0 now. AIUI, most pro level audio mixers and other devices also use USB 2.0.

Originally Posted by Robo Can you, um, lose the attitude?

I don't know, can they?

And that's all software for towers, because laptops run different software...? Have you looked at the PC gaming industry lately? The areas of growth are browser-based games, casual games, and free-to-play MMOs. None of those are aimed at people with big "gaming rigs." For everybody who is not Blizzard, "gamer" PC gaming hasn't been doing too well. And it's not like World of Warcraft is incapable of running on a laptop.

Laptops won't give you the flexibility or the bang for the buck. Why should I pay extra for a laptop when I have no desire to game in a prone position on my bed or on a couch? Or sound like a vacuum cleaner whenever I open a Flash based website or use my work applications.

Also have you looked at the biggest releases of the year? Starcraft 2, World of Warcraft: Cataclysm, CoD:MW2, CoD:Black Ops, and others? Browser-based games are definitely in the long-term future, but right now the big budgets and the sales are all going to Valve, Activision Blizzard and EA. No bigtime developer is going to start making games on an HTML5 canvas using WebGL when they can squeeze every available drop of computing power out of hardware using traditional programming methods. ..And if you think only Blizzard is doing well, I can invite you for a chat with Zoid at Valve. I'm sure he'd be willing to share his opinion on that.