backtop


Print 43 comment(s) - last by IntelUser2000.. on Nov 7 at 6:06 AM


Light Peak Demo  (Source: CNET)
Support for USB 3.0 by Intel could be as far out as 2012

Intel is an innovator in the computer market and has been for years, despite issues with anticompetitive practices around the world. Intel currently supports USB 2.0 and other connectivity like FireWire and eSATA in its mobile chipsets.

However, Intel has not offered support for the new USB 3.0 interface in its chipsets and the few machines on the market with USB 3.0 support are doing so using third-party chipsets. On-chip support for USB 3.0 from Intel is thought to be as far out as 2012. Intel is talking up its own much faster competing standard to USB 3.0 known as Light Peak. Light Peak first surfaced earlier this year and was thought to be coming in late 2010.

That date was later pushed and 
CNET News reports that Light Peak is now ready to hit the market by the middle of 2011. One industry source cited by CNET claims that support will come in the first part of the year, not the later part meaning it could be right around the corner.

Light Peak is much faster than USB 3.0 with speeds up to 10Gbps. Industry heavyweight Apple is not supporting USB 3.0 on its computers, but it is expected to fully support Light Peak and the thought is that Apple may even be the first computer maker to offer the tech on a computer. Intel has already stated when Light Peak was first unveiled that "Apple is an innovating force in the industry."

Officially Intel still has plans to support USB 3.0 reports 
CNET. An Intel spokesperson said, "We are absolutely committed to USB 3.0 and beyond that." Exactly when that commitment will start is the big question and it appears the start will be after Light Peak has time to take hold in the market.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: anticompetitive
By Motley on 11/4/2010 2:47:21 PM , Rating: 3
Just because the biggest entity in a field decides to delay or not implement a technology doesn't make them anti-competitive. They are not forcing AMD to not implement anything, nor are they manipulating the marketplace outside of what they themselves do.

How is this anti-competitive?

What makes this a "mass standard", and how fast is required by you before it's not considered delayed? Please state your experiences in chip design, processes, testing, and rollout on a global scale so we can compare it to Intels. If you are really that good, we welcome you to roll out your own chipset and beat Intel to the punch; You could make gabjillions.


RE: anticompetitive
By omnicronx on 11/4/2010 3:14:24 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
How is this anti-competitive?
How is The biggest entity in the field writing the book on how to implement said technology and not implementing it themselves while they develop another set of technology and release it first not anti competitive?

Sure AMD has USB3 all to themselves for now, but what happens when Intel releases their solution a year before USB3 is implemented into Intel chipsets? That means that 80% of computers sold could come with Intel's technology and not USB3.

They could easily have more market saturation in that one year, than AMD and its less than 20% share can accomplish in many.


RE: anticompetitive
By omnicronx on 11/4/2010 3:17:15 PM , Rating: 2
I have no specific problem with either techology, but it seems to me that Intel has zero excuse not to integrate USB3 other than to leverage their own products using their market dominance.

Or can anyone else give me a reason as to why the company that had full access to the not only the USB3 spec but the implementation spec more than 2 years ago could not beat those waiting on Intel for one of the specifications to the market.


RE: anticompetitive
By someguy123 on 11/4/2010 6:45:46 PM , Rating: 3
This isn't anti-competitive, it's basic competition. They're in no way hampering USB3 adoption by forcing 3rd parties to choose either-or (like they did with their anti-amd kickbacks), and they're not sabotaging or hiding implementation information from anyone. Using their market position to push lightpeak adoption does automatically equate to stifling USB3.0 adoption, especially when you're already seeing 3.0 being offered on intel platforms by other companies before lightpeak has been released.

It's fair game to not implement USB3 as a standard on their products if they don't choose to do so because, regardless of how low the cost is, its still an additional cost to implement.


RE: anticompetitive
By someguy123 on 11/4/2010 6:46:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
does automatically equate to stifling USB3.0 adoption
>

should be "does not".


"People Don't Respect Confidentiality in This Industry" -- Sony Computer Entertainment of America President and CEO Jack Tretton














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki