Overview
Active Optical Cable (AOC) revenue is expected to build significant growth over the next five years, according to this new IGI report. The worldwide recession has had a significant impact on new AOC design starts in the last year, reflected in a fairly modest revenue level of $137 million for 2010. New designs starting in late 2009 as well as designs expected through 2010 will create a strong increase in AOC sales in 2011-12, with slightly more modest increases in the subsequent two years covered in this report. Cumulative AOC revenue for the entire five-year period will be in excess of $7 billion, with over $2.4 billion in 2014 alone.
Total AOC counts identified in this report should exceed 1.2 million units in 2010, growing to over 48 million units by 2014. Much of this growth comes from heavier participation from USB and HDMI AOC cables, building off a more modest base of higher ASP InfiniBand AOC cables.
The Active Optical Cables Market Report 2010 continues its focus on several key application and bus interface segments that are expected to generate significant business over the next five years. Our focus remains with the core AOC cable OEMs as well as their underlying material suppliers (i.e., fiber-optic cable, VCSELs, optical detector/PIN diodes, and connectors) and customers. The 2010 version is expanded to include Intel’s recently announced Light Peak product.
The bus interface focus has been modified slightly from last year. InfiniBand, HDMI, USB, and DisplayPort are still included in the analysis. The report includes new markets such as SAS and CXP. Forecasts for DisplayPort AOC have been reduced dramatically based on our new research findings.
The importance of optical IO connections continues to grow. In the past year, we have seen IO cable bandwidth increase at the expense of copper cable length restrictions, with reductions in maximum allowable length for the latest forms of USB, HDMI, and DisplayPort. More and more HPC clients also report preference for optical InfiniBand cables above the 5-7 meter length. All applications users are noting the thicker, bulkier copper cables now required to address bandwidth and power delivery issues, making the opportunity for active optical cables that much stronger. For example, some supercomputers have shifted from all copper to all AOC.
Light Peak, the new Intel optical initiative announced at their San Francisco Developers Forum in September and supported by Sony, has been added to the overall report mix, and is expected to be a core part of our reports over the coming years. While Light Peak does not appear to be an active cable technology per se, it does bear close scrutiny for several reasons:
- With Intel pushing this technology, it has a strong likelihood of eventual success in the general marketplace, especially with backing from Sony (Apple is also rumored to be interested).
- The announcement revealed certain technical elements used heavily by AOCs. Should Intel prove successful in driving their Light Peak to volume markets, it could easily have great impact on overall AOC cost structures due to greatly increased economies of scale.
- Light Peak is aimed at carrying multiple digital data protocols across a single fiber using standardized connections on each end of their cable. Other buses have registered multiple protocol support in the past (FCoE, Ethernet over HDMI, USB rumored via DisplayPort), which could lead into an ugly market confrontation in the near future such as we saw with the Blu-ray vs. HD DVD head-on collision two years ago.
The author has made a significant improvement in the quality of charts and tables, as we have made a large investment in our data-collection and report-generation tools.
The author has made a significant improvement in the quality of charts and tables, as we have made a large investment in our data-collection and report-generation tools. Readers who desire advanced digital forms of this report or the tools used to create this report are urged to contact us at info@igigroup.com.
Report Features
As with our previous reports, we provide a wealth of information and illustrative charts covering many aspects of the active optical cable business. Readers will find plenty of details related to:
- Overall market revenue as well as breakout by covered application and interface segments
- Total number of cables by segment, including changes in relative rank over the five-year period covered in this report
- Optical element (light source and detectors) volume and breakout by speed, both in individual application segments and across the overall market
- Similar information related to the other key elements such as optical fibers, cable jackets, and connectors.
The collection of details in this report will be useful to both the cable OEMs and their core suppliers. Certain sectors that are strong in the earlier years covered by this report will give way to newer segments that develop greater volumes in years 3-5.
Traditional reports of this nature tend to concentrate on business developed as a result of only new systems and the additional ports they bring to their users. It should be noted that each of the interfaces covered also has a substantial installed base, which represents an added opportunity to cable providers as an “after initial market” sale or as part of repair spares, replacement, or system upgrades.
Nowhere is this more apparent than in the HPC market segment. There is plenty of evidence of the benefits of active cables toward lower system installation and operating costs. Larger installations can reduce the number of expensive IB switches used to extend copper cable reach by simply using longer-reach active cables. These same installations can see their cooling system operating costs reduced thanks to improved airflow with the smaller-diameter cables.
It is only natural to expect the overall technology trend toward smaller and lighter devices to extend to cables necessary to connect these devices to other devices. Who wants to carry five pounds of cables just to connect a video camera, NetBook, etc., just for a high-bandwidth connection not possible with current wireless technologies? We do expect the overall trend toward smaller optical cables to bear greater customer appeal, even when the equivalent-function copper cable can be had at lower unit prices, just as was seen with the first ToshLink audio cables in the 1990s.
Readers should benefit from reading all chapters in this market report. We hope you also take a moment to view our excellent set of data management tools, which can be used in conjunction with the information in this report as well as with special additional applications you may require.
List of Contents
- Introduction
- Executive Summary
- Report Methodologies & Tools
- Key Technologies Watch
- System Architectures
- IO Transport Density
- Multi-Protocol Convergence
- Light Peak
- Light Peak Connectors
- Bus Interface Advances
- USB
- USB Connectors
- HDM
- HDMI Connectors
- InfiniBand Connectors
- DisplayPort
- DisplayPort Connectors
- Green Technology and AOC Power Delivery Support
- AOC Optoelectronic Technologies
- Optical Backplanes & Silicon Photonics
- AOC Co‐existence with Wireless Technologies
- Overall Active Optical Cable Business Trends
- AOC Bus Interface Trends (2010‐2014)
- InifiniBand AOC Trends (2010‐2014)
- USB AOC Bus Trends (2010‐2014)
- HDMI AOC Bus Trends (2010‐2014)
- DisplayPort AOC Bus Trends (2010‐2014)
- AOC Trends by Application Type (2010‐2014)
- HPC AOC Trends (2010‐2014)
- HDTV AOC Trends (2010‐2014)
- PC AOC Trends (2010‐2014)
- CE AOC Trends (2010‐2014)
- AOC Core Materials Trends (2010‐2014)
- VCSEL Trends (2010‐2014)
- Optical Fiber Trends (2010‐2014)
- Analysis of AOC Connector Trends (2010‐2014)
- Analysis of AOC Cable Trends (2010‐2014)
- Active Optical Cable Market Drivers
- Additional Resources
Figure 1: AOC Revenue (Years 2010-‐2014)
Figure 2: AOC Cable Count (Years 2010-‐2014)
Figure 3: Revenue by Bus Type (Years 2010-‐2014)
Figure 4: Cable Count by Bus Type (Years 2010-‐2014)
Figure 5: VCSEL Count by VCSEL Speed (2010-‐2014)
Figure 6: VCSEL Count (2010-‐2014)
Figure 7: Light Peak Technology
Figure 8: USB 3.0 Connector (www.usb.org)
Figure 9: HDMI Type C and Type A Connectors (www.cablesunlimited.com)
Figure 10: HDMI Type A Connector (www.HDMI.org)
Figure 11: InfiniBand CX4 Connectors (copper)
Figure 12: Molex CXP Connector Family (www.molex.com)
Figure 13: IBTA Roadmap (www.inifinibandta.org)
Figure 14: DisplayPort connector (www.VESA.org)
Figure 15: Total AOC Revenue vs. Cable Count
Figure 16: AOC ASP vs. Total Revenue
Figure 17: Revenue Share by Application Type (2010)
Figure 18: Revenue by Application Type (2014)
Figure 19: Unit Share by Application (2010)
Figure 20: Unit Share by Application (2014)
Figure 21: 2010 Unit Share vs. Cable Speed (All Applications)
Figure 22:2014 Unit Share vs. Cable Speed (All Applications)
Figure 23: 2010 Revenue Share vs. Cable Speed (All Applications)
Figure 24: 2014 Revenue Share vs. Cable Speed (All Applications)
Figure 25: Overall AOC Revenue by Bus Type
Figure 26: Overall AOC Cable Count by Bus Type
Figure 27: Overall AOC ASP by Bus Type
Figure 28: Bus Type Revenue Share (2010)
Figure 29: Bus Type Revenue Share (2014)
Figure 30: Bus Type Unit Share (2010)
Figure 31: Bus Type Unit Share (2014)
Figure 32: Bus Type Unit Share by Cable Speed (2010)
Figure 33: Bus Type Unit Share by Cable Speed (2014)
Figure 34: Bus Type Revenue Share by Cable Speed (2010)
Figure 35: Bus Type Revenue Share by Cable Speed (2014)
Figure 36: InfiniBand AOC Revenue by Bus Speed
Figure 37: InfiniBand AOC Cable Count by Bus Speed
Figure 38: InfiniBand AOC Cable ASP
Figure 39: InfiniBand Revenue By Application Type
Figure 40: InfiniBand Revenue by Application Type
Figure 41: InfiniBand Unit Share By Application
Figure 42: InfiniBand Unit Share By Application
Figure 43: InfiniBand Unit Share vs. Cable Speed
Figure 44: InfiniBand Unit Share vs. Cable Speed
Figure 45: InfiniBand Revenue Share vs. Cable Speed
Figure 46: InfiniBand Revenue Share vs. Cable Speed
Figure 47: USB AOC Revenue by Bus Speed
Figure 48: USB AOC Cable Count by Bus Speed
Figure 49: USB AOC Cable ASP
Figure 50: USB Revenue by Application Type
Figure 51: USB Revenue by Application Type
Figure 52: USB Unit Share by Application
Figure 53: USB Unit Share By Application
Figure 54: USB Unit Share vs. Cable Speed
Figure 55: USB Unit Share vs. Cable Speed
Figure 56: USB Revenue Share vs. Cable Speed
Figure 57: USB Revenue Share vs. Cable Speed
Figure 58: HDMI AOC Revenue by Bus Speed
Figure 59: HDMI AOC Cable Count by Bus Speed
Figure 60: HDMI AOC Cable ASP
Figure 61: HDMI Revenue By Application Type
Figure 62: HDMI Revenue By Application Type
Figure 63: HDMI Unit Share By Application
Figure 64: HDMI Unit Share By Application
Figure 65: HDMI Unit Share vs. Cable Speed
Figure 66: HDMI Unit Share vs. Cable Speed
Figure 67: HDMI Revenue Share vs. Cable Speed
Figure 68: HDMI Revenue Share vs. Cable Speed
Figure 69: DP AOC Revenue
Figure 70: DP AOC Cable Count by Bus Speed
Figure 71: DP AOC Cable ASP by Bus Speed
Figure 72: DP Revenue By Application Type
Figure 73: DP Revenue By Application Type
Figure 74: DP Unit Share By Application
Figure 75: DP Unit Share By Application
Figure 76: DP Unit Share vs. Cable Speed
Figure 77: DP Unit Share vs. Cable Speed
Figure 78: DP Revenue Share vs. Cable Speed
Figure 79: DP Revenue Share vs. Cable Speed
Figure 80: AOC Revenue by Platform Type
Figure 81: AOC Cable Count by Platform Type
Figure 82: AOC Cable ASP by Platform Type
Figure 83: Revenue Share by Application Type (2010)
Figure 84: Revenue Share by Application Type (2014)
Figure 85: Unit Share by Application Type (2010)
Figure 86: Unit Share by Application Type (2014)
Figure 87: Unit Share by Bus Speed (2010)
Figure 88: Unit Share by Bus Speed (2014)
Figure 89: Revenue Share by Bus Speed (2010)
Figure 90: Revenue Share by Bus Speed (2014)
Figure 91: HPC AOC Revenue & Cable Units
Figure 92: HPC AOC Revenue & Cable ASP
Figure 93: HPC Revenue Share by Bus Speed (2010)
Figure 94: HPC Revenue Share by Bus Speed (2014)
Figure 95: HPC Cable Share by Bus Speed (2010)
Figure 96: HPC Cable Share by Bus Speed (2014)
Figure 97: HPC Cable Units by Bus Speed (2010-‐2014)
Figure 98: HDTV AOC Revenue & Cable Count
Figure 99: HDTV AOC Revenues & Cable ASP
Figure 100: HDTV Revenue Share by Bus Speed (2010)
Figure 101: HDTV Revenue Share by Bus Speed (2014)
Figure 102: HDTV Cable Share by Bus Speed (2010)
Figure 103: HDTV Cable Share by Bus Speed (2014)
Figure 104: HDTV Cable Units by Bus Speed (2010-‐2014)
Figure 105: PC AOC Revenue & Cable Units
Figure 106: PC AOC Revenue & Cable ASP
Figure 107: PC Revenue Share by Bus Speed (2010)
Figure 108: PC Revenue Share by Bus Speed (2014)
Figure 109: PC Cable Share by Bus Speed (2010)
Figure 110: PC Cable Share by Bus Speed (2014)
Figure 111: PC Cable Units by Bus Speed (2010-‐2014)
Figure 112: CE AOC Revenue & Cable Units
Figure 113: CE AOC Revenue & Cable ASP
Figure 114: CE RevenueShare by Bus Speed (2010)
Figure 115: CE Revenue Share by Bus Speed (2014)
Figure 116: CE Cable Share by Bus Speed (2010)
Figure 117: CE Cable Share by BusSpeed (2014)
Figure 118: CE Cable Units byBus Speed (2010-‐2014)
Figure 119: AOC Revenue vs. VCSEL Units
Figure 120: AOC ASP vs. VCSEL Units
Figure 121: VCSEL Share by Application (2010 All Speeds)
Figure 122: VCSEL Share by Application (2014 All Speeds)
Figure 123: 10Gbps VCSEL Share by Application (2010)
Figure 124: 10 Gbps VCSEL Share by Application (2014)
Figure 125: 2.5 Gbps VCSEL Share by Application (2010)
Figure 126: 2.5Gbps VCSEL Share by Application (2014)
Figure 127: VCSEL Share by Bus Speed (2010)
Figure 128: VCSEL Share by Bus Speed (2014)
Figure 129: AOC Revenue vs. Total Fiber Length
Figure 130: AOC ASP vs. Total Fiber Length
Figure 131: Fiber Share by Application (2010)
Figure 132: Fiber Share by Application (2014)
Figure 133: 10 Gbps Fiber Share by Application (2010)
Figure 134: 10 Gbps Fiber Share by Application (2014)
Figure 135: 2.5 Gbps FiberShare by Application (2010)
Figure 136: 2.5 Gbps Fiber Share by Application (2014)
Figure 137: Fiber Share by Bus Speed (2010)
Figure 138:Fiber Share by Bus Speed (2014)
Figure 139: AOC Revenue vs. Connector Units
Figure 140: AOC ASP vs Connector Units
Figure 141: Connector Share by Application (2010)
Figure 142: Connector Share by Application (2014)
Figure 143: 10 Gbps Connector Share by Application (2010)
Figure 144: 10 Gbps Connector Share by Application (2014)
Figure 145: 2.5 Gbps Connector Share by Application (2010)
Figure 146: 2.5Gbps Connector Share by Application (2014)
Figure 147: Connector Shareby Bus Speed (2010)
Figure 148: Connector Share by Bus Speed(2014)
Figure 149: Cable Revenue vs. Total Cable Length
Figure 150: Cable ASP vs Total Cable Length
Figure 151: Cable Length Share by Application (2010)
Figure 152: Cable Length Share by Application (2014)
Figure 153: 10 Gbps Cable Length Share by Application (2010)
Figure 154: 10 Gbps Cable Length Share by Application (2014)
Figure 155: 2.5 Gbps Cable Length Share by Application (2010)
Figure 156: 2.5Gbps Cable Length Share by Application (2014)
Figure 157:Cable Length Share by BusSpeed (2010)
Figure 158: Cable Length Share by Bus Speed (2014)
List of Tables
Table 1: Revenue Share by Application Type (2010)
Table 2: Revenue by Application Type (2014)
Table 3: Unit Share by Application (2010)
Table 4: Unit Share by Application (2014)
Table 5: 2010 Unit Share vs. Cable Speed (All Applications)
Table 6: 2014 Unit Share vs. Cable Speed (All Applications)
Table 7: 2010 Revenue Share vs. Cable Speed (All Applications)
Table 8: 2014 Revenue Share vs. Cable Speed (All Applications)
Table 9: Bus Type Revenue Share (2010)
Table 10: Bus Type Revenue Share (2014)
Table 11: Bus Type Unit Share (2010)
Table 12: Bus Type Unit Share (2014)
Table 13: Bus Type Unit Share by Cable Speed (2010)
Table 14: Bus Type Unit Share by Cable Speed (2014)
Table 15: Bus Type Revenue Share by Cable Speed (2010)
Table 16: Bus Type Revenue Share by Cable Speed (2014)
Table 17: InfiniBand Revenue by Application Type
Table 18: InfiniBand Revenue by Application Type
Table 19: InfiniBand Unit Share by Application
Table 20: InfiniBand Unit Share By Application
Table 21: InfiniBand Unit Share vs. Cable Speed
Table 22: InfiniBand Unit Share vs. Cable Speed
Table 23: InfiniBand Revenue Share vs. Cable Speed
Table 24: InfiniBand Revenue Share vs. Cable Speed
Table 25: USB Revenue by Application Type
Table 26: USB Revenue by Application Type
Table 27: USB Unit Share by Application
Table 28: USB Unit Share By Application
Table 29: USB Unit Share vs. Cable Speed
Table 30: USB Unit Share vs. Cable Speed
Table 31: USB Revenue Share vs. Cable Speed
Table 32: USB Revenue Share vs. Cable Speed
Table 33: HDMI Revenue by Application Type
Table 34: HDMI Revenue by Application Type
Table 35: HDMI Unit Share By Application
Table 36: HDMI Unit Share by Application
Table 37: HDMI Unit Share vs. Cable Speed
Table 38: HDMI Unit Share vs. Cable Speed
Table 39: HDMI Revenue Share vs. Cable Speed
Table 40: HDMI Revenue Share vs. Cable Speed
Table 41: DP Revenue by Application Type
Table 42: DP Revenue By Application Type
Table 43: DP Unit Share By Application
Table 44: DP Unit Share By Application
Table 45: DP Unit Share vs. CableSpeed
Table 46: DP Unit Share vs. Cable Speed
Table 47: DP Revenue Share vs. Cable Speed
Table 48: DP Revenue Share vs. Cable Speed
Table 49: Revenue Share by Application Type (2010)
Table 50: Revenue Share by Application Type(2014)
Table 51: Unit Share by Application Type (2010)
Table 52: Unit Share by Application Type (2014)
Table 53: Unit Share by Bus Speed (2010)
Table 54: Unit Share by Bus Speed (2014)
Table 55: Revenue Share by Bus Speed (2010)
Table 56: Revenue Share by Bus Speed (2014)
Table 57: HPC Revenue Share by Bus Speed (2010)
Table 58: HPC Revenue Share by Bus Speed (2014)
Table 59: HPC Cable Share by Bus Speed (2010)
Table 60: HPC Cable Share by Bus Speed (2014)
Table 61: HDTV Revenue Share by Bus Speed (2010)
Table 62: HDTV Revenue Share by Bus Speed (2014)
Table 63: HDTV Cable Share by Bus Speed (2010)
Table 64: HDTV Cable Share by Bus Speed (2014)
Table 65: PC Revenue Share by Bus Speed (2010)
Table 66: PC Revenue Share by Bus Speed (2014)
Table 67: PC Cable Share by Bus Speed (2010)
Table 68: PC Cable Share by Bus Speed (2014)
Table 69: CE Revenue Share by Bus Speed (2010)
Table 70: CE Revenue Share by Bus Speed (2014)
Table 71: CE Cable Share by Bus Speed (2010)
Table 72: CE Cable Share by Bus Speed (2014)
Table 73: VCSEL Share by Application (2010 All Speeds)
Table 74: VCSEL Share by Application (2014 All Speeds)
Table 75: 10 Gbps VCSEL Share by Application (2010)
Table 76: 10 Gbps VCSEL Share by Application (2014)
Table 77: 2.5 Gbps VCSEL Share by Application (2010)
Table 78: 2.5Gbps VCSEL Share by Application (2014)
Table 79: VCSEL Share by Bus Speed (2010)
Table 80: VCSEL Share by Bus Speed(2014)
Table 81: Fiber Share by Application (2010)
Table 82: Fiber Share by Application (2014)
Table 83: 10 Gbps Fiber Share by Application (2010)
Table 84: 10 Gbps Fiber Share by Application (2014)
Table 85: 2.5 Gbps Fiber Share by Application (2010)
Table 86: 2.5 Gbps Fiber Share by Application (2014)
Table 87: Fiber Share by Bus Speed (2010)
Table 88: Fiber Share by Bus Speed (2014)
Table 89:Connector Share by Application (2010)
Table 90: Connector Share by Application (2014)
Table 91:10Gbps Connector Share by Application(2010)
Table 92: 10 Gbps Connector Share by Application (2014)
Table 93: 2.5 Gbps Connector Share by Application (2010)
Table 94: 2.5Gbps Connector Share by Application (2014)
Table 95: Connector Share by Bus Speed (2010)
Table 96: Connector Share by Bus Speed (2014)
Table 97: Cable Length Share by Application (2010)
Table 98: Cable Length Share by Application (2014)
Table 99: 10 Gbps Cable Length Share by Application (2010)
Table 100: 10 Gbps Cable Length Share by Application (2014)
Table 101:2.5Gbps Cable Length Share by Application (2010)
Table 102: 2.5Gbps Cable Length Share by Application (2014)
Table 103: Cable Length Share by Bus Speed (2010)
Table 104: Cable Length Share by Bus Speed (2014)
Table 105: Key Active Optical Cable Market Drivers
Table 106: Glossary of Terms, Abbreviations and Acronyms
|
