Thanks for the link. I went to the thread and then the link within the thread, and it seems to be about the 13" base model. Is the issue the same for the 15"?
- 867Mbps 802.11ac Wi-Fi is a downgrade from last year's 1.3Gbps.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2016 MacBook Pros may not be compatible with currently available Thunderbolt 3 devices
- Thread starter Woodcrest64
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It is a software decision by Apple in MacOS.
To repost what I said in another thread: Extremetech has posted an informative article concerning Apple's decision to make certain TB 3 docks or hubs incompatible with its implementation of TB 3 on the new Macs. In short, MacOS rejects some but not all accessories using the TI TPS65982 chipset based on Apple's proprietary implementation of TB 3. All TB 3 accessories that don't work with the new MBPs do actually conform to Intel's TB spec, so it is still unknown why some accessories using the TPS65982 chipset work while others don't. The article also links to a list of accessories that are known to be compatible with the new MBPs--could be very useful if you are looking for accessories.
Last edited:
And that is exactly my problem..... If you are going to use a port standard, make ALL products that conform to the port specs compatible. Now not only do you have to worry about whether something is USBC/TB3, but you also have to worry about if it has the correct chip to be compatible. That is not the definition of a better user experience in my book.
So, to clarify, the TI chipset is not only compliant with the standard, but explicitly specified by the standard. Intel's published standard says to use that specific chipset. And some, but apparently not all, devices which use that chipset get rejected by Mac OS on the new MBP. And no one knows why.
You really need to (re-)read the article you just linked to because nowhere does it say anything about iOS or about the TB3 implementation being proprietary (it actually does the opposite by stating that these are not 3rd party chips but the official ones mentioned in the specs and docs from Intel which is what makes this a very strange issue in the first place). This is just one of the many articles about the findings of Plugable regarding their TB3 devices. ExtremeTech have now gotten some more information from Plugable regarding this issue which could point to this being some kind of software bug. Plugable at first stated that every device with the 82 chip is not going to work with the new MBPs but later found that some of the devices with the 82 chip do work without problems with the new MBPs. Or as they've put it:
While the 83 will most definitely work, the situation with the 82 went from "doesn't work" to "some work, some don't".
Ok, I'm not sure if in my haste I mistyped or if autocorrect on my iPhone changed my post, but I meant MacOS and not iOS. That is my mistake. I will correct my post.
By proprietary, I meant Apple's acceptance or rejection of devices, all of which comply with the spec as listed by Intel. Either Apple is really lacking in its OS QC or it has implemented its own policies in its code for OS X with regard to which TB3 devices to accept (=proprietary) regardless of the a device's conformity to the official spec.
To quote the article:
According to Plugable, none of its existing hardware currently on the market is compatible with the MacBook Pro because OS X expects all devices to use the second-generation TPS65983 solution.
A quick look at Akitio's website shows that none of its TB3 peripherals (4 storage enclosures and its eGPU solution) work with Macs. The only accessories that seem to function are its TB3 adapter for TB 1/2 devices, a USB-C 3.1 (non-TB) hard drive, and its TB3 cable.
This does seem to imply that it is a problem with OS X. The fact that all TB3 hardware functions normally with Windows also suggests it is a problem with OS X.
Considering third-party hardware was available before Apple's event, the sceptic in me thinks the rejection of some devices and not others, both of which comply with Intel's official spec, is the result of a proprietary implementation of TB3 by Apple in its software, for whatever reason.
Just because something doesn't work, doesn't mean that it is a proprietary implementation. Even in 2016 bugs in software and hardware still exist. This being some kind of software bug in macOS (such as the driver) is far more likely, especially given the fact that the OS X/macOS version coming with a new Mac is slightly different than the general available version due to hardware support (meaning: this build comes with new drivers that aren't yet available in the general available version; it will be with the next software update).
TB3 is a universal port and a rather expensive one. Any proprietary implementation would be the dumbest thing any OEM could do because it means it won't be compatible with all those devices that make this port sense. In other words: any proprietary TB implementation makes the inclusion of the TB port completely useless. Apple would be killing one of their main USPs.
You quoted the wrong part of the article as Plugable made it very clear that the issue is with only some of the devices using the 82 chip, not with all of them. All devices with the 83 chip are working fine as do older generation Thunderbolt devices (thus 1 and 2). That alone is another pointer that this isn't proprietary but probably something in macOS (such as the driver) or a combination of the hardware and the software.
Exactly so that would be some kind of software bug, probably in the driver.
There is absolutely zero evidence that there is any kind of proprietary implementation. All the evidence points at some sort of software bug. From my own experience and those of many others the most likely culprit is the TB driver. It wouldn't be the first time a driver is causing strange issues and it wouldn't be the first time a driver in OS X/macOS to be the culprit either. Proprietary implementation is too far fetched. It's like saying aliens have put it there.
Boneheaded? Absolutely. An intentionally proprietary implementation? I will believe it is simply a matter of drivers and poor QC IF and WHEN MacOS is compatible with all products which correctly implement Intel's TB3 spec. Until then, ....
I have seen a lot of boneheaded moves by Apple over my lifetime, including crippling products purely for market segmentation. To reach way back, one only needs to revisit the G3 MB and G4 PowerBook graphics debacle, wherein both were capable of extending the desktop to external screens--both had dGPUs back then--but Apple crippled the MB with firmware to limit it to only mirroring the desktop. We had to resort to hacks to enable built-in functionality.
Is it possible Apple doesn't want Mac users using eGPUs? Why didn't Apple tout eGPUs to professionals? What about docks? Why didn't Apple build a dock? Isn't it curious no such use of docks was mentioned in Apple's introduction of the new MBPs? Apple showed connecting peripherals such as hard drives and monitors to a MBP via dongles (yet never mentioned or showed such adapters), but not docks. Compared to past unveilings, the feel of the presentation was wrong--I watched it live via stream.
I quoted the correct part of the article AND I acknowledged the information in the update. I would like to see a list of devices using the 82 chip that are compatible versus all of the devices that are incompatible. Call me curious.
After the debacle that has become the MBP release, I no longer trust Apple. Until Apple is honest about the capabilities of all its products (e.g., no fake speaker grill in iPhones), I will continue to question. I watched Apple almost die and then experience a renaissance, a golden age of sorts. I fear we are now beginning its gilded age.
...you just look silly and dumb.
That's because Apple is like any other company.
If you want the answer to those questions you need to do some homework and brush up your technical level. Apple does not gain anything by not support eGPUs. The machines with dual GPUs have already shown that this is quite difficult and an external GPU makes matters even more complex. They've gotten the hang of switching between GPUs but what happens when the link to the eGPU gets disconnected? Racer has run into this issue and it caused their machine to crash. Apparently it now works a bit better where the internal GPU will actually take over after a brief time.
The main thing here is that you really need to have proper eGPU support before you offer it (and thus handle disconnects properly).
Why should they? They are a company that build computers and handheld devices. Apple isn't really an accessory company, ever. They did have things like that but those have never been a success so why put all the energy into something like that instead of in something that you are actually good at?
You are simply asking the wrong questions here. Apple is very capable of building a dock, they've shown that with the Thunderbolt display. It's just that they are better at other things which is why they leave this to others who are better at making these kind of products than Apple.
That's because you had the wrong expectations. We are long past the time where every unveiling in the world of computing was major. We are hitting ceilings everywhere and software has moved to a faster development cycle (which means that you get things much quicker but the amount of changes is a lot smaller). It isn't entirely your fault though, it's partly the industries fault too because they accustomed people to the "more more more" principle. Now that this strategy has become impossible it backfires on them.
Then where did you do that? It sure isn't anywhere in this topic. Just take a look at what you quoted from the article and what I quoted. Those are not the same. If you quoted the correct part of the article and acknowledged the updated info then your quote should have been exactly the same as mine. The difference might be a bit too subtle for you to notice but your quote speaks of only 83 products being compatible with OS X whereas the updates speaks of 83 AND 82 being compatible with OS X except for some 82 devices.
Due to the fact that some devices with the 82 chip do not work and some with the same chip do, we really need a list like that. It's good to see manufacturers step up by checking their own products and providing a compatibility list for us.
That debacle is entirely made up by the people on forums like here. What it shows once more is that you should never trust people on the internet, especially self-proclaimed "professionals" and bloggers.
You are not capable of such a thing, you are too much into conspiracies, you'll find something else to question and keep questioning.
When I read posts like yours I have that same fear about humanity. This is getting ridiculous now.
Yep,
& . I don't remember sending you my picture! I believe TB3 is part of the XConnect standard for eGPUs. While I agree there should be proper support for eGPUs before offering it, the same could be said about the problem with Apple's inability to utilize certain peripherals which use the 82 chip. Why again can Windows utilize all peripherals using 82 chips but Macs cannot?
Apple should build a dock because their MBPs are incompatible with a large number of docks out on the market already. BTW, Apple is an accessory company. Have you not seen all of the dongles and adapters they sell? I would love to compare how many accessories Apple sells by unit in comparison to their computers.
Umm, they don't make a TB display anymore
. In fact they don't make any displays anymore.It is not simply an expectation of bigger that gave me that impression. In fact, MR covered much of what was going to be revealed, so that was not what I was looking for. The problem for me was that in past unveilings, there seemed to be more information given about what was being introduced. What we received was a touch bar demonstration, but no real demonstration of TB3. Perhaps Phil was nervous, but it seemed like when he was talking about connecting peripherals--the one area I think has the most potential--it was glossed over. There was no live demonstration of TB3. Instead, we were given a trip down Nostalgia Lane so we could know how much faster a Mac is now than when it was first introduced. I was not impressed. Impress me by showing me the advantage of TB3 over against USB-A 3.0 or USB-C 3.1.
Ok, look at my post above (#27). But for convenience, let me re-quote it:
To repost what I said in another thread: Extremetech has posted an informative article concerning Apple's decision to make certain TB 3 docks or hubs incompatible with its implementation of TB 3 on the new Macs. In short, MacOS rejects some but not all accessories using the TI TPS65982 chipset based on Apple's proprietary implementation of TB 3. All TB 3 accessories that don't work with the new MBPs do actually conform to Intel's TB spec, so it is still unknown why some accessories using the TPS65982 chipset work while others don't. The article also links to a list of accessories that are known to be compatible with the new MBPs--could be very useful if you are looking for accessories.
There, I even underlined the relevant portion for you. You're right, though, I just don't understand subtle statements./s
Apple should be providing a list to every consumer who purchases one of their MBPs, lest the consumer finds out it doesn't just work when they make a costly purchase.
Well, there are many recognized professionals (e.g., Lisa Gade from MobileTechReview) and technology sites (e.g., arstechnica, extremetech) who share similar thoughts about the shortcomings of the MBP and there are many more who, yes, are more prosumers and aspiring professionals, who have showcased some of the MBP's flaws--including the fact that one 13" MBP was intermittently losing its wifi connection when connected to a TB3 hard drive when a Windows laptop using the same hard drive did not (e.g., Louis Rossmann on YouTube). Unless you plan to prove what these people present and demonstrate as facts to be wrong, then please stop denigrating everyone else.
That's right, only conspiracy theorists ask questions. Not students. Or scientists. Or thoughtful people.
Do you even know what a gilded age is? And what does my concern that Apple is entering a gilded age have to do with a fear about humanity? There are many, not just historians, who have noted the parallels between past gilded ages and the products being produced in contemporary society.
There is a software patch "TB3-enabler" that might allow these unsupported Thunderbolt 3 devices to work in macOS Sierra.
I had to use the patch to connect a "Thunderbolt 3 to Dual DisplayPort" adapter to a "AKiTiO Thunder3 Duo Pro" connected to a MacBook Pro 2015 using an "Apple Thunderbolt 3 to Thunderbolt 2" adapter.
I had to use the patch to connect a "Thunderbolt 3 to Dual DisplayPort" adapter to a "AKiTiO Thunder3 Duo Pro" connected to a MacBook Pro 2015 using an "Apple Thunderbolt 3 to Thunderbolt 2" adapter.
A patch that may or may not work after a macOS update (be it minor, be it major). With the average pricing of Thunderbolt devices I'd think very carefully going down this path. You may end up spending a couple of hundred additional dollars. With all the new TB3 stuff with the correct chip coming out I'd say that this does not weigh up against simply waiting.
If devices that work with the patch don't work after a macOS update, then of course the patch will need to be updated. Either the original author of the patch will update it or I'll do it myself (disassemble the patched file, look at the before and after versions, then apply a similar patch to the updated file).
I had bought those Thunderbolt 3 devices before the MacBook Pro 2016 came out (I've had a PC with Thunderbolt 3 for over a year already), so waiting for them to magically work isn't an option.
Apple has not provided any explanation for why their OS will not connect to existing Thunderbolt 3 devices that have worked for every Thunderbolt 3 PC for over a year. Without such an explanation, Apple leaves many users to speculate that Apple is just punishing Thunderbolt 3 device manufacturers that dared to create Thunderbolt 3 devices before Apple had a Thunderbolt 3 Mac.
I had bought those Thunderbolt 3 devices before the MacBook Pro 2016 came out (I've had a PC with Thunderbolt 3 for over a year already), so waiting for them to magically work isn't an option.
Apple has not provided any explanation for why their OS will not connect to existing Thunderbolt 3 devices that have worked for every Thunderbolt 3 PC for over a year. Without such an explanation, Apple leaves many users to speculate that Apple is just punishing Thunderbolt 3 device manufacturers that dared to create Thunderbolt 3 devices before Apple had a Thunderbolt 3 Mac.
Provided that Apple doesn't do something else that renders the entire patch useless (in other words: anything that will cause it to be redesigned/rewritten). You do realise that all this requires a thorough knowledge of software and hardware which 99,99% of the people here do not have at all. Using the patch is really bad advice.
Apple doesn't need to because the official technical documentation of the Texas Instrument chip already does that. Their first chip isn't officially Thunderbolt 3 compliant, their second chip (number ending in 83) is. Anyone with a strict Thunderbolt 3 implementation is going to have issues with the non-official chip. The only assumption here is that Apple seems to have a rather strict implementation of Thunderbolt 3 and Windows, in general, does not. The other assumption to make here is that very loose implementation in Windows and the use of a non-official certified chip is probably the reason why so many first gen TB3 devices have issues with Windows machines (Dell actually pulled their TB3 dock and re-released it).
Btw, there haven't been that many TB3 devices, the market has just started creating them. Also, some people confuse them with USB-only USB-C devices.
These speculations are caused by ill-informed people, not by Apple, Intel or anyone else. The TI documentation is very clear and the fact that most manufacturers pulled their TB3 devices after lots of negative feedback says enough. The only speculation in that documentation is the reason why one chip is officially certified and the other is not (something with power support).
The main gist is that this is highly unsupported and may break at any time with the risk of you having invested hundreds of dollars into devices you can no longer use. Each one has to decide for themselves how big that risk is and if it is worth to take it. For most people here the best thing to do is to wait. There aren't that many people here with a high level understanding of hardware and software or a money tree in their garden. I'd say it is a disservice to them not to point out the downsides of using this patch (or any patch for that matter).
This happens on my Late 2013 15" rMBP. My mobile USB 3 hub instantly kills the wifi. I can only use it when I really need it.