AAPL Stock: 118.03 ( -0.85 )

Printed from

Apple not directly behind Light Peak?

updated 08:10 am EDT, Wed September 30, 2009

Apple less involved in Intel Light Peak

A counter-rumor today claims that stories of Apple creating Light Peak for Intel are false. The unnamed sources for CNET believe that Intel had already been developing the technology and that the semiconductor firm had simply asked Apple for feedback as part of its usual requests for outside input. Apple's specific influence isn't explained, but its tendency to ask for features "nobody else does" helped drive the technology, according to the tips.

Intel's program director behind Light Peak, Jason Ziller, has stated that his company has been developing the technology for the past two years but hasn't said if or when Apple was involved at the start of the project. Allegedly, Apple has wanted a format that could both replace most connectors or serve as a gateway for them on very small devices like iPhones and iPods.

The opposing interpretation of events nonetheless doesn't discuss Apple's possible plans for the 10-gigabit connector standard, which would not just be used for typical high-performance tasks such as solid-state drives but would put networking, video and other traffic on a single bus. Intel has acknowledged that Light Peak can simply route data from other standards and could implement DisplayPort, FireWire, USB 3.0 and other technologies all on a single connection.

by MacNN Staff



  1. danviento

    Joined: Dec 1969


    Single connection, you say?

    That sounds very much like a feature Apple would want: One specialty cable to run all of your data connections between a monitor, hub, or docking station to you main machine.

    Just think, one special connection and your previously limited MacBook Air can now have all the USB, firewire, and external display connections from one port. Yeah, I can see some viability in this idea.

  1. iphonerulez

    Joined: Dec 1969


    It seems to be useful for buyers

    as long as it starts out as an added port to all the others already in use otherwise what happens to all your older peripherals. I know I was fairly unhappy at the time when Apple moved from SCSI to whatever came after it. I realize transitions are necessary but it doesn't always make it any easier. It seems like I'm already seeing the demise of FW400 and was a bit unhappy until I saw a FW800 to FW400 adapter offered. I can live with that.

  1. testudo

    Joined: Dec 1969


    Re: It seems useful

    What you say is 100% true. But this is Apple. They aren't known for keeping backward compatibility. It would be more likely to see Apple put one of these new fangled ports on their machines and drop all others.

    And then we get to hear how Apple is looking forward and saving us money by not adding all those legacy ports, regardless of the fact it does cost us money since we then have to buy new peripherals or adapters or what-not.

  1. Johnny Niles

    Joined: Dec 1969


    Good for Intel

    Regardless of how much Apple did or didn't have directly to do with it, the fact that Intel is asking for their feedback is crucial. This is how technology moves forward. Apple is one of the very few companies who is not afraid to push new technology through regardless of the cost. It's good to see that Intel is trying to do the same thing.

    On machines like the Macbook Air, a single port that can do everything would be pretty awesome. There is a lot of potential in something like this, not just for Apple but for everybody. TVs could incorporate a light peak port and have instant expandability and network. Almost any type of device could have a single light peak port and have all kinds of expanded functionality. It just makes sense.

  1. testudo

    Joined: Dec 1969


    Re: good for intel

    TVs could incorporate a light peak port and have instant expandability and network. Almost any type of device could have a single light peak port and have all kinds of expanded functionality

    No, it would NOT give them instant expandability. The fact of having a port does not magically give you network access, say. You still need hardware and software in the device in order to expand to this functionality.

    And most devices don't need this to get that, since they're usually big enough you could just slap the existing ports on them. It isn't like the back of a TV is lacking space for a network port.

    And bear in mind you'd still have all the same cables as before, its just all going into a hub to merge into a light-speed cable, unless you think all networking hardware, video, printers, scanners, etc, are all going to switch next year and everyone is buying new hardware to go along with their ports.

  1. FireWire

    Joined: Dec 1969


    re: good for intel

    we used to have that magical port.. it was called FireWire.. it was supposed to be everywhere: you would connect your TV to your VCR and camcorder and they would all talk together, and you wouldn't need to mess with a lot of different cables.. snif snif

Login Here

Not a member of the MacNN forums? Register now for free.


Network Headlines

Follow us on Facebook


Most Popular


Recent Reviews

Ultimate Ears Megaboom Bluetooth Speaker

Ultimate Ears (now owned by Logitech) has found great success in the marketplace with its "Boom" series of Bluetooth speakers, a mod ...

Kinivo URBN Premium Bluetooth Headphones

We love music, and we're willing to bet that you do, too. If you're like us, you probably spend a good portion of your time wearing ...

Jamstik+ MIDI Controller

For a long time the MIDI world has been dominated by keyboard-inspired controllers. Times are changing however, and we are slowly star ...


Most Commented