In an interview with PC World posted this morning, HP's Consumer Desktops Product Manager Xavier Lauwaert was quoted as follows in regard to the absence of Thunderbolt ports in HP's newly announced desktops: "On the PC side, everybody seems to be content with the expansion of USB 3.0. Do we need to go into more fancy solutions? Not convinced yet."

Thunderbolt, if you're unaware, is a new peripheral device input standard. In development at Intel since 2009 (when it was code-named Light Peak), Thunderbolt debuted this year in Apple's most recent MacBook Pro laptops and iMac all-in-one desktops.

Boasting 10Gbps full-duplex data transfer speeds (meaning it allows 10Gb of data per second both into and out of each port, simultaneously) Thunderbolt also integrates support for the DisplayPort and PCI Express 2.0 standards. That means along with fast data transfers, Thunderbolt can act as a monitor port, and also work with external video-processing devices at bandwidths approaching those of an internal graphics card.

Although Thunderbolt ports have been available by way of the new MacBook Pro since February 24, no Windows-based systems offer Thunderbolt. When we asked why, we were told by Intel's Dave Salvator that we "should expect to see Thunderbolt in a lot more places in 2012." It's worth noting that Intel is currently the sole vendor of the necessary Thunderbolt controller chip.

No Thunderbolt-based peripheral devices have come to market yet, but Apple representatives told us to expect them "this summer," in a meeting earlier this month. A number of vendors previewed Thunderbolt devices at the NAB Show this past April, among them external solid-state drive arrays and video port hubs.

USB 3.0, alternatively, has appeared in Windows laptops and desktops since 2010. It is a common feature in Windows-based PCs that use Intel's second-generation Core processors. Although Intel doesn't yet support USB 3.0 natively on its motherboard chipsets, a number of vendors sell the necessary USB 3.0 controller silicon. USB 3.0 features 5Gbps maximum data transfer speeds--half that of Thunderbolt--but it is also backwards compatible with the vast universe of existing USB 2.0 devices. Unlike Thunderbolt, USB 3.0 does not feature native support for any video bus or display standards.

From a purely technical standpoint, Thunderbolt is superior to USB 3.0 in that it's faster, and offers greater potential in its video and graphics device compatibility. USB 3.0, though, has more immediate utility. You can already find USB 3.0 hard drives and other devices available for sale alongside legacy USB 2.0 devices. The only thing you can connect to a Thunderbolt port right now is an external monitor via a Mini-DisplayPort cable.

What to make, then, of these apparent battle lines? First, understand that the two standards do not necessarily exist in opposition to each other. Intel has said it will feature native support for both standards in chipsets supporting its next-generation Ivy Bridge CPU architecture, due out at the end of the year. That will allow PC manufacturers the ability to easily adopt both standards in the same system, similar to the co-existence of USB 2.0, FireWire 400, and eSATA ports on many existing motherboards.

Second, while Apple worked with Intel to bring Thunderbolt to market earlier this year, it does not appear to be an option available to Windows vendors or motherboard manufacturers at the moment. Intel was not willing to speak more specifically as to the reasons why, although Salvator said no when we asked whether Apple paid for short-term Thunderbolt exclusivity.

As for Mr. Lauwaert's comments, although HP will have low-risk access to both Thunderbolt and USB 3.0 a year from now, it still has PCs it hopes to sell today. HP's TouchSmart all-in-ones, with their touch screens, Blu-ray drives, and HDMI inputs and outputs, for example, are aimed squarely at consumers who might not see the benefit of a standard like Thunderbolt that has no compatible devices available for purchase. USB 3.0 and its support for a large number of existing devices makes a far more logical choice for HP's desktop target market, which is one reason you'll find USB 3.0 ports on HP's recent TouchSmart 610 all-in-one.

Alternatively, the new iMacs and MacBook Pros lack some of the more consumer-oriented features you'll find on Windows PCs in the same price range. The new iMacs and MacBooks have plenty of merits, but by adding Thunderbolt, Apple has made a typically forward-looking decision that will attract digital media professionals and other serious-minded customers. A video editor who has to move a multigigabyte file between multiple workstations will always appreciate faster data transfer speeds. Thunderbolt and its superior throughput allow Apple to make a better pitch to that customer than it could with USB 3.0, which provides only an incremental speed benefit over Apple's existing FireWire 800 ports.

By bypassing USB 3.0 in favor of Thunderbolt, Apple has made its preferences clear. HP and other mainstream Windows PC vendors may need to see a broader consumer benefit before they embrace Thunderbolt. Once Intel adds native chipset support for Thunderbolt and USB 3.0 next year, we expect more PCs than not will support them both

Google Chairman Eric Schmidt said today in London that the company is prepared to go on fighting the bill should it become law, according to published reports. U.K. publication the Guardian is reporting that in a discussion with reporters during a London business conference, Schmidt said: "If there is a law that requires DNS [domain name systems, the protocol that allows users to connect to Web sites], to do x, and it's passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president of the United States, and we disagree with it, then we would still fight it...If it's a request, the answer is we wouldn't do it; if it's a discussion, we wouldn't do it."

This is the first time Google management has come out against attempts to dispose of Web sites accused of piracy. A bill introduced into the U.S. Senate last week, called the Protect IP Act, looks to hand the U.S. Department of Justice the power to seek a court order against an allegedly infringing Web site. The order could be served on search engines, certain Domain Name System providers, and Internet advertising firms--which would in turn be required to "expeditiously" make the target Web site vanish.

Related links
• Leahy's Protect IP bill even worse than COICA
• Has Google jumped sides in copyright war?
• Indie filmmakers: Piracy and Google threaten us

Protect IP, which is the offspring of a bill introduced last year called the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA), is supported by an array of groups that represent copyright owners, such as the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), clothing manufacturers, the Alliance of Safe Online Pharmacy, Eli Lilly and others. Supporters say such a bill is necessary to stop the mass pirating of intellectual property occurring online, which costs U.S. businesses billions in lost revenue and thousands of jobs.

Critics, which include the Electronic Frontier Foundation, prominent technologists and the American Civil Liberties Union, say the bill would equip the government with the means to silence dissenting opinion at will.

"If there is a law that requires DNS to dox, and it's passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president of the United States, and we disagree with it, then we would still fight it...If it's a request, the answer is we wouldn't do it."

Schmidt compared the bill to the kind of laws that restrict free speech in China. Copyright owners have said the legislation has a series of legal checks and balances built in and would be geared only toward pirate sites. The United Kingdom is also working on plans to restrict access to sites accused of trafficking in counterfeit or pirated goods.

The timing of Schmidt's comments is important. For the past year, Google has signaled it wants a closer relationship with Hollywood film studios and the major music labels as it has attempted to obtain licensing rights to content. The search engine announced it would start booting alleged copyright violators off AdSense, Google's successful advertising program. Managers said they would try to block terms associated with piracy from appearing in the search engine's Autocomplete function.

But big copyright owners may not have as much leverage over Google now. After months and months of negotiating over licenses with the four largest record companies, Google launched a music service but did so in a way that the company said wouldn't require licenses.

Schmidt's comments on Protect IP and antipiracy were far more resolute than those made before Congress last month by Kent Walker, Google's general counsel. A subcommittee of the House of Representatives held a hearing on online piracy and counterfeiting, and members grilled him about accusations that Google profited from intellectual-property theft, such as from the posting of Google ads to pirate sites.

Walker listed many of the ways Google has helped protect copyrighted works and also cautioned against trying to take drastic approaches to piracy that may lead to other larger problems. However, Walker was certainly much more conciliatory than the saber-rattling Schmidt.

Some of the copyright owners lashed out at Schmidt's comments.

"This is baffling," said Jonathan Lamy, an RIAA spokesman. "As a legitimate company, Google has a responsibility to not benefit from criminal activity. In substance and spirit, this contradicts the recent testimony of (Walker) that the company takes copyright theft seriously and was willing to step up to the plate in a cooperative and serious way."

"Is Eric Schmidt really suggesting that if Congress passes a law and President Obama signs it, Google wouldn't follow it?" asked Michael O'Leary, the MPAA's chief of government relations. "As an American company respected around the world, it's unfortunate that, at least according to its executive chairman's comments today, Google seems to think it's above America's laws."

O'Leary also said that a respected expert on the U.S. Constitution noted last month that "copyright violations are not protected by the First Amendment."

"Google seems to think it's above America's laws."

On the other side of the debate, those who believe in the free flow of information, and critics of Protect IP, will likely welcome Schmidt's comments. Up until the company began making nice with copyright owners the past year or so, Google was seen as a champion of open Internet distribution of content. The company has sparred over copyright issues with newspapers, book publishers, recording companies, and big Hollywood studios--even fending off a $1 billion copyright complaint filed against it by Viacom, parent company of MTV.

It's unclear how much Google can do to prevent the bill from passing, or if it does, what it can do to reverse the government's position. Protect IP has broad support in both major political parties and in both houses of Congress, as well as in the White House.

In response to questions from CNET, a Google representative issued this statement: "Free expression is an issue we care deeply about, and we continue to work closely with Congress to make sure the Protect IP Act will target sites dedicated to piracy while protecting free expression and legitimate sites."

Google Chairman Eric Schmidt said today in London that the company is prepared to go on fighting the bill should it become law, according to published reports. U.K. publication the Guardian is reporting that in a discussion with reporters during a London business conference, Schmidt said: "If there is a law that requires DNS [domain name systems, the protocol that allows users to connect to Web sites], to do x, and it's passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president of the United States, and we disagree with it, then we would still fight it...If it's a request, the answer is we wouldn't do it; if it's a discussion, we wouldn't do it."

This is the first time Google management has come out against attempts to dispose of Web sites accused of piracy. A bill introduced into the U.S. Senate last week, called the Protect IP Act, looks to hand the U.S. Department of Justice the power to seek a court order against an allegedly infringing Web site. The order could be served on search engines, certain Domain Name System providers, and Internet advertising firms--which would in turn be required to "expeditiously" make the target Web site vanish.

Related links
• Leahy's Protect IP bill even worse than COICA
• Has Google jumped sides in copyright war?
• Indie filmmakers: Piracy and Google threaten us

Protect IP, which is the offspring of a bill introduced last year called the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA), is supported by an array of groups that represent copyright owners, such as the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), clothing manufacturers, the Alliance of Safe Online Pharmacy, Eli Lilly and others. Supporters say such a bill is necessary to stop the mass pirating of intellectual property occurring online, which costs U.S. businesses billions in lost revenue and thousands of jobs.

Critics, which include the Electronic Frontier Foundation, prominent technologists and the American Civil Liberties Union, say the bill would equip the government with the means to silence dissenting opinion at will.

"If there is a law that requires DNS to dox, and it's passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president of the United States, and we disagree with it, then we would still fight it...If it's a request, the answer is we wouldn't do it."

Schmidt compared the bill to the kind of laws that restrict free speech in China. Copyright owners have said the legislation has a series of legal checks and balances built in and would be geared only toward pirate sites. The United Kingdom is also working on plans to restrict access to sites accused of trafficking in counterfeit or pirated goods.

The timing of Schmidt's comments is important. For the past year, Google has signaled it wants a closer relationship with Hollywood film studios and the major music labels as it has attempted to obtain licensing rights to content. The search engine announced it would start booting alleged copyright violators off AdSense, Google's successful advertising program. Managers said they would try to block terms associated with piracy from appearing in the search engine's Autocomplete function.

But big copyright owners may not have as much leverage over Google now. After months and months of negotiating over licenses with the four largest record companies, Google launched a music service but did so in a way that the company said wouldn't require licenses.

Schmidt's comments on Protect IP and antipiracy were far more resolute than those made before Congress last month by Kent Walker, Google's general counsel. A subcommittee of the House of Representatives held a hearing on online piracy and counterfeiting, and members grilled him about accusations that Google profited from intellectual-property theft, such as from the posting of Google ads to pirate sites.

Walker listed many of the ways Google has helped protect copyrighted works and also cautioned against trying to take drastic approaches to piracy that may lead to other larger problems. However, Walker was certainly much more conciliatory than the saber-rattling Schmidt.

Some of the copyright owners lashed out at Schmidt's comments.

"This is baffling," said Jonathan Lamy, an RIAA spokesman. "As a legitimate company, Google has a responsibility to not benefit from criminal activity. In substance and spirit, this contradicts the recent testimony of (Walker) that the company takes copyright theft seriously and was willing to step up to the plate in a cooperative and serious way."

"Is Eric Schmidt really suggesting that if Congress passes a law and President Obama signs it, Google wouldn't follow it?" asked Michael O'Leary, the MPAA's chief of government relations. "As an American company respected around the world, it's unfortunate that, at least according to its executive chairman's comments today, Google seems to think it's above America's laws."

O'Leary also said that a respected expert on the U.S. Constitution noted last month that "copyright violations are not protected by the First Amendment."

"Google seems to think it's above America's laws."

On the other side of the debate, those who believe in the free flow of information, and critics of Protect IP, will likely welcome Schmidt's comments. Up until the company began making nice with copyright owners the past year or so, Google was seen as a champion of open Internet distribution of content. The company has sparred over copyright issues with newspapers, book publishers, recording companies, and big Hollywood studios--even fending off a $1 billion copyright complaint filed against it by Viacom, parent company of MTV.

It's unclear how much Google can do to prevent the bill from passing, or if it does, what it can do to reverse the government's position. Protect IP has broad support in both major political parties and in both houses of Congress, as well as in the White House.

In response to questions from CNET, a Google representative issued this statement: "Free expression is an issue we care deeply about, and we continue to work closely with Congress to make sure the Protect IP Act will target sites dedicated to piracy while protecting free expression and legitimate sites."

Apple has signed a cloud-music licensing agreement with EMI Music and is very near to completing deals with Universal Music Group and Sony Music Entertainment, multiple music industry sources told CNET.

Warner Music Group already had a deal in place with Apple, CNET reported last month. The licensing agreements will enable Apple to launch a fully licensed cloud-music service to rival unlicensed offerings of rivals Amazon and Google.

The negotiations with Sony Music Group and Universal Music Group could be wrapped up as early as next week, the sources said. What this means is that signed contracts with all four of the top four record companies will be in Apple's hip pocket on June 6 when Apple kicks off the company's Worldwide Developers Conference. The sources who spoke with CNET did not know when Apple would announce the deals or roll out the cloud service.

Representatives from the labels as well as Apple declined to comment.

The cloud is the term used to describe when a person uses a third-party's servers for computing instead of a local PC. One of the core features of a cloud music service is enabling consumers to store their songs on the companies' servers. They can then access their libraries from Web-connected devices.

Apple will finish behind Googleand Amazon in the race to the cloud, but Apple now has the freedom to offer a range of features that rivals are prevented from rolling out because of the licensing restrictions, the sources said.

One example is that instead of requiring users to spend hours uploading their songs to the company's servers, as Google and Amazon do, Apple could just scan a user's hard drives to see what songs they own and then provide them almost-instant streaming access to master recordings. The process is sometimes referred to as "scan and match." The music service Lala, which Apple acquired in December 2009, made this process famous.

There's no doubt who the top-four record companies are pulling for in the cloud music wars. They hope Apple's service makes the other two guys look shabby by comparison. The thinking is that if Apple's service eclipses those of its rivals, it will prompt Amazon and Google to pay the labels' licensing rates.

What nobody has proven yet is whether consumers even want the cloud. CNET has reported that Apple is likely to charge a subscription fee eventually for its cloud service. Subscription music services such as Rhapsody have a spotty record at attracting audiences.

The main criticism is that once a user stop paying fees, the music disappears. But the services and the labels are hoping that consumers will find value in the ability to access their tracks from anywhere, anytime, and with any device that will connect to the Web