Feeds

Intel 'Light Peak': not an Apple idea after all

Why hasn't Steve taken credit?

Secure remote control for conventional and virtual desktops

Intel's newly announced 'Light Peak' optical interconnect wasn't developed at Apple's instigation as has been claimed.

So says a mole cited by Cnet, and we're not at all surprised, for a number of reasons.

Intel has been working on various technologies relating to the integration of optical data streams into computer systems for some years.

We recall getting a briefing on so-called 'silicon photonics' - the production of CMOS chips capable of converting electronically transmitted data into laser light and then back again - back in 2006 at Intel Developer Forum.

Light Peak doesn't directly involve silicon photonics products, but it's clear the chip maker has been thinking about optical interconnects for longer than a casual chat between Steve Jobs and Paul Otellini might have prompted.

A year later, at the 2007 IDF, the USB 3.0 Promoter Group - the membership list includes Intel - were already talking about the possibility of incorporating optical technology into the bus standard. SuperSpeed is here - well, almost - and its entirely electric. It's not clear why optical never made it into the final cut, but the time it has taken to get optical ready suggests the minds behind SuperSpeed felt it more important to get the faster bus standard out into the market quickly than wait for what may now well form the basis for USB 4.0.

SuperSpeed has a theoretical maximum throughput of 4.8Gb/s - Light Peak will kick of at around 10Gb/s and has scope to be extended to 100Gb/s.

Certainly, Intel's recent Light Peak demos used a connector a lot like a USB A port and probably not so very different to this:

USB 3 optical connector
Optical USB 3 circa 2007

But more to the point, perhaps, would Apple really hand all this over to another company? It has always enjoyed a healthy stream of royalties - originally $1 a port - from the development of the Firewire - aka 1394 - bus and we can't see it passing up a similar opportunity to own intellectual property rights to a future optical interconnect. ®

Beginner's guide to SSL certificates

More from The Register

next story
Xperia Z3: Crikey, Sony – ANOTHER flagship phondleslab?
The Fourth Amendment... and it IS better
Don't wait for that big iPad, order a NEXUS 9 instead, industry little bird says
Google said to debut next big slab, Android L ahead of Apple event
Microsoft to enter the STRUGGLE of the HUMAN WRIST
It's not just a thumb war, it's total digit war
Ex-US Navy fighter pilot MIT prof: Drones beat humans - I should know
'Missy' Cummings on UAVs, smartcars and dying from boredom
Netscape Navigator - the browser that started it all - turns 20
It was 20 years ago today, Marc Andreeesen taught the band to play
A drone of one's own: Reg buyers' guide for UAV fanciers
Hardware: Check. Software: Huh? Licence: Licence...?
The Apple launch AS IT HAPPENED: Totally SERIOUS coverage, not for haters
Fandroids, Windows Phone fringe-oids – you wouldn't understand
Apple SILENCES Bose, YANKS headphones from stores
The, er, Beats go on after noise-cancelling spat
prev story

Whitepapers

Forging a new future with identity relationship management
Learn about ForgeRock's next generation IRM platform and how it is designed to empower CEOS's and enterprises to engage with consumers.
Why and how to choose the right cloud vendor
The benefits of cloud-based storage in your processes. Eliminate onsite, disk-based backup and archiving in favor of cloud-based data protection.
Three 1TB solid state scorchers up for grabs
Big SSDs can be expensive but think big and think free because you could be the lucky winner of one of three 1TB Samsung SSD 840 EVO drives that we’re giving away worth over £300 apiece.
Reg Reader Research: SaaS based Email and Office Productivity Tools
Read this Reg reader report which provides advice and guidance for SMBs towards the use of SaaS based email and Office productivity tools.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.