Mac Mini to Lose Its USB-A Ports Later This Year

[aaronhead14]

This would make sense if there were going to be more Thunderbolt/USB4 ports on the back, but if there's only going to be 3 of them on the back (which is one less than the current Mac Minis) then I see no reason why there can't also be one or two USB-A ports as well. Kinda dumb.

 

[theluggage]

Optical drives certainly weren‘t „truly obsolete“ in 2011.

When recordable CD-ROMs came out in the early 90s it was a big deal that you needed a 1GB hard drive to prepare images for writing.

In 2011, my MacBook Pro came with a 750GB hard drive.

A DVD stores under 5GB. The drive occupied something like 20% of the volume of a MacBook and - in my experience - had a half-life of about a year. Recording CDs/DVDs was slow and a fiddle c.f. writing to an external HD or memory stick.

By 2010 you could get 128GB USB memory sticks, and cheaper ones that could still hold multiple DVDs - and they worked just like hard discs, no faffing around with sessions, finalising discs etc.

Or, do what I did, and rip out the optical drive from the MacBook and replace it with a second HD that could hold scores of DVDs worth of data.

Yes, you could still buy software on CD/DVD in 2011 but, by then, the first thing you usually did was download the updated version from the website and use the license code off the packet...

So, thoroughly superseded by widely available alternatives by 2011. Certainly not justified in a laptop given the size and weight.

Just give me ports that can do everything on my computer

Requiring ports that "do everything" just means you get fewer ports because "everything ports" consume more CPU I/O resources and cost more.

 

[AppliedMicro]

By 2010 you could get 128GB USB memory sticks, and cheaper ones that could still hold multiple DVDs - and they worked just like hard discs, no faffing around with sessions, finalising discs etc

They didn’t come with popular, commercially produced movies on them.

 

[theluggage]

They didn’t come with commercially produced movies on them.

You could fit dozens of movies on the typical laptop hard drive by then - and there were already multiple ways of doing that (some even legal).

For the last 10 years or more, my DVD/Blu-ray drive has only come out of the cupboard when I've wanted to rip a movie or CD. Works nicely ib a USB-A port, though...

 

[AppliedMicro]

You could fit dozens of movies on the typical laptop hard drive by then - and there were already multiple ways of doing that (some even legal).

They weren’t sold on flash memory.

And publishers took active steps (copy protection measures) to prevent “average consumers” from copying them.
Watching movies on physical media was a thing back then and not obsolete.
It was, in fact, about time when Blu-ray began to take off - but rather than supporting that, Apple culled physical drives from their device lineup altogether (practically, with the exception of their USB SuperDrive).

 

[breenmask]

Not arbitrary. Many people wanting USB-C on iPhones for benefits that had nothing to do with e-waste concerns.

you replied to my post about "absolutely incredible those who advocated for the death of lightning for the reasons of "usb-c is the future" and "we need to stop producing XYZ port because the ENVIRONMENT""

I was talking about those people.

 

[WhisperingBobcat]

"Only USB-C ports" still means you will accumulate a bunch of different capable ports and different capable cables. And just because the cable fits, doesn't mean it will work. My $75 10ft USB-C active 100W 400GB/s is different than my much, much cheaper "charging" cables, but both are unlabled except for maybe brand. The USB-C cable that came with my iPad isn't labeled, but won't run my monitor at full resolution, if at all, I can't remember. Label your cables wisely.

 

[turbineseaplane]

"Only USB-C ports" still means you will accumulate a bunch of different capable ports and different capable cables. And just because the cable fits, doesn't mean it will work. My $75 10ft USB-C active 100W 400GB/s is different than my much, much cheaper "charging" cables, but both are unlabled except for maybe brand. The USB-C cable that came with my iPad isn't labeled, but won't run my monitor at full resolution, if at all, I can't remember. Label your cables wisely.

Yeah -- good point

Remember how USB-C was supposed to solve all this?

It did nothing of the kind and it's almost worse now having the exact same connector with such wildly different capabilities depending upon cable and chipset and sometimes even the specific plug on a given machine.

At least differently shaped plugs can give some guidance on what they are and what they do

 

[Sowelu]

It continues to baffle the mind as to why USB-A is still being used by PC manufacturers in 2024, and why consumers are still asking for (or in many cases, demanding) these ports.

USB-C has been around for ages and is superior in every way, so why won't USB-A finally die? If people can't let go of their legacy peripherals, a $3 adapter permanently attached to said peripherals will save the day.

If the PC industry keeps putting out laptops and peripherals, drives and hubs with USB-A, it will never die and peripheral manufactures will continue to make USB-A the dominant port which just forces this unnecessary USB-A cycle to continue.

It's time to move on from legacy ports so that the peripheral and PC industry can do the same. I am glad that Apple is making this step.

 

[drrich2]

It was, in fact, about time when Blu-ray began to take off - but rather than supporting that, Apple culled physical drives from their device lineup altogether (practically, with the exception of their USB SuperDrive).

IIRC, Steve Jobs regarding the Blu-ray licensing situation of the time called it a 'big bag of hurt.' Apple was an early proponent of digital movie downloads; they may've had an ulterior motive for discouraging optical drive use.

The technology had gotten a bit unwieldy. Backing up a large hard drive onto writeable CDs took a bunch, there was the formatting war (Blu-ray vs HD DVD, DVD-R vs. DVD-RW) at a time when widespread broadband internet access and video downloads were pushing the optical drive toward irrelevancy, and thumb drive capacities got big.

There were still times they came in handy. Software might come on one, if you went cruising your digital photo purchase might come on one, etc...

USB-C has been around for ages and is superior in every way, so why won't USB-A finally die?

It's not superior for every use case. Some USB-A thumb drives fit much closer to the port. For some uses, like a wireless keyboard/mouse receiver, there's no practical difference.

If the PC industry keeps putting out laptops and peripherals, drives and hubs with USB-A, it will never die and peripheral manufactures will continue to make USB-A the dominant port which just forces this unnecessary USB-A cycle to continue.

If USB-C were superior in every way, peripheral manufacturers wouldn't continue making USB-A products so much (and they don't, where USB-C offers compelling advantages). These products would progressively slide into obsolescence; it would largely die.

Ironically, as others have noted, not all USB-C ports are created equal. Is it a waste of a good port that a manufacturer only used USB-C but not Thunderbolt? Or that a given USB-C port has a slower max. data transfer rate than some others? Shouldn't every port be the latest and greatest? No...that would add more expense than benefit.

 

[turbineseaplane]

It continues to baffle the mind as to why USB-A is still being used by PC manufacturers in 2024, and why consumers are still asking for (or in many cases, demanding) these ports.

Because it works fine for what it does and there are zillions of peripherals and USB drives, etc, etc, out there and in use every day.

By all means add USB-C ports too!
More options the better!

 

[AppliedMicro]

If USB-C were superior in every way, peripheral manufacturers wouldn't continue making USB-A products so much

There’s just two reasons IMO:

• widespread and legacy adoption
• saving a penny or two

The thing about the USB flash drives you mentioned are true (manufacturers may be able to fit some more component „footprint“ into the connector), but an unimportant edge case. And, as a side note, not a good idea anyway: USB flash drives do get hot at USB3 speeds, and it’s not a good idea to have them sit flush with the case.

 

[Yvan256]

Show me a USB-C flash drive that's as tiny and as flush mount as the Lexar JumpDrive S47, SanDisk Cruzer Fit or SanDisk Cruzer Ultra Fit. You can't, because the USB-C connector is too small to add any components inside of it.

And having a USB drive stick out the side of your computer, especially a laptop, is taking unnecessary risks.

 

[IvyKing]

Again - nobody is advocating against USB-C ports
I think we are splitting hairs and choosing to believe what we prefer by saying "having only USB-C is progress"

Functionally speaking, on a day to day usage basis, for many users, it's a lateral move at best

And if one has USB-A needs still, it ends up necessitating adapter purchases to continue doing what they are already doing.

Think about that point...

To keep doing what that user is already doing at this very moment, they now need to buy things to adapt.
That user gains nothing if they already have USB-C ports also (which is highly likely, if not certain, depending upon which Mac model they are coming from here)

There's no way to convince me that's "better" in the short/medium term for a user that has USB-A needs

I couldn't agree more!

The thing that is keeping USB-A alive is the relative lack of USB-C ports on Windows machines. The 3 year old ASUS VivoBook that I use with USB instruments at work has THREE USB-A ports and ONE USB-C ports. Until we get to the point where the vast majority of Windows machines in use have adequate numbers of USB-C ports, there will be a market for USB-A peripherals. Eliminating USB-A ports from the Mac Mini will have essentially ZERO effect on phasing out USB-A devices.

As mentioned by a poster or two, one advantage of keeping the USB-A ports on the mini is that they can be dedicated to non-TB peripherals. Another advantage to keeping USB-A ports is that inserting a thumb drive into a port can be done with one hand, were two will usually be with an adapter cable. While it is true that the unified USB-A to USB-C adapters can also be used with one hand, those adapters are really easy to lose.

 

[ric22]

I want a Mac Mini with 8 Thunderbolt Ports that I can connect to my hubs. Any port that that's not Thunderbolt 3 at least is a waste of space. I want every port to be at least Thunderbolt 3 speed. Why does anyone need a USB-A port directly on the Mac mini ?

Someone

Yeah, I’m with them on that one, as I’m tired of having to tell people that their blue USB-A port is faster than their notebook’s black one (maybe.) I like USB, but I wish it really was a standardized standard, rather than a multitude of standards combined into a few connectors.

I find I have less need for multiple USB ports these days, but I guess I’m not messing with stuff as much as I used to (that, and almost everything being networked now.)

I'm with them on that too (though they should have baked in the capacity for more than just two high speed USB-C ports on the M series base chips). I briefly had a work laptop with 3 USB-C ports, with wildly different specs, but no markings to check which was which so you had to remember. 🤦‍♂️

 

[teejaysplace24]

I swear to god if the Mini comes in a black finish and not the Studio...

 

[Chuckeee]

Until we get to the point where the vast majority of Windows machines in use have adequate numbers of USB-C ports, there will be a market for USB-A peripherals. Eliminating USB-A ports from the Mac Mini will have essentially ZERO effect on phasing out USB-A devices.

I am positive I heard nearly the same rationale when the original iMac came without a floppy drive and only a CD ROM drive

All window machines have floppy drives

There are so few Apple machines it will have zero effect on phasing out floppy disk drives.

 

[diskrisk]

How is "leaving USB-A behind" prudent or technological progress?

Because there is an objectively better option out there already, which USB-A does not have any benefits above it (other than wider adoption, which is always going to be the case for an older standard at first).

I'm certainly not making this case but one could say for ethernet just like I'm sure the case is made for USB-A, is that the ethernet port space could be used for something else, whether for a different port, improved heat dissipation, storage, smaller form factor, or perhaps in the great name of technological progress, etc.

Except nobody is making that case because Ethernet does not have a better alternative. There is no "Ethernet Type-C" (to call it something) that improves on the task of providing wired network access. USB-A does.

where's the benefit in forcing the end user who on average uses USB-A more than USB-C, to having to adapt to such a loss by means of a hub or adapter cables when a desktop itself previously provided said functionality?

It's not immediate, but the benefit is in forcing peripheral manufacturers to adapt to modern technologies. USB-C has been out for almost 10 years now, is just as cheap to implement as Type-A is, and benefits from reversibility, more reliable connections, taking less space in a computer, etc.. Why are we still making stuff with USB-A? Because computers still come out with the port. We'd still be using floppy disks if computers could still read them natively.

People are just defending what Apple have chosen to do

I was asking for this since before Apple made this choice. Hell, we don't even know if it is in fact a choice Apple made because the machine hasn't even been announced. But people just like to chalk up anything they disagree with as "fanboyism". Par for the course around here.

 

[macjaffa]

Genuinely hope this is not true. I honestly wish the MacBooks had at least 1 USB Type A port. It’s still incredibly useful.

People said that about floppy drives. Get with the times use usb c Or get an adapter

 

[Nekronos]

Because there is an objectively better option out there already, which USB-A does not have any benefits above it (other than wider adoption, which is always going to be the case for an older standard at first).


Except nobody is making that case because Ethernet does not have a better alternative. There is no "Ethernet Type-C" (to call it something) that improves on the task of providing wired network access. USB-A does.

It's not immediate, but the benefit is in forcing peripheral manufacturers to adapt to modern technologies. USB-C has been out for almost 10 years now, is just as cheap to implement as Type-A is, and benefits from reversibility, more reliable connections, taking less space in a computer, etc.. Why are we still making stuff with USB-A? Because computers still come out with the port. We'd still be using floppy disks if computers could still read them natively.

I was asking for this since before Apple made this choice. Hell, we don't even know if it is in fact a choice Apple made because the machine hasn't even been announced. But people just like to chalk up anything they disagree with as "fanboyism". Par for the course around here.

USB-A has a number of benefits already mentioned in this thread, USB-C is not objectively better for every purpose USB-A is used for.

You seem to have missed the point on the ethernet comparison, ethernet does have a better alternative for the average end user - it's called wifi. I'm a fan of wired connections but the average person does not use them, and if making a case for phasing out a port - that's the best case there is, lack of use. USB-A is widely used and thus lacking a strong case for removing it.

Things like floppies, dvds and cds all had very linear product cycles, ports are different - peripherals like a mouse, monitor or keyboard all remain useful for much longer than rapidly evolving storage capacities. A mouse and keyboard don't benefit from USB-C, there's nothing ground-breaking there.

Devices have been produced for years now with USB-C, but not everyone buys new devices and those who do don't all buy newer peripherals. Forcing peripheral manufacturers to adapt technologies consumers don't want isn't beneficial. This isn't how the free market works, when people stop buying USB-A products, the market will shift naturally. Also, USB-A is cheaper than USB-C, what makes you think USB-C is just as cheap? Furthermore, USB-C tends to be physically more frail than USB-A, so I don't know where you have the idea that connections are more reliable - that's just not the case, USB-A is very reliable and resilient.

USB-A isn't obsolete and it won't be for awhile, it's more than capable for much of what the average user needs it for. Let's not forget we are talking about a desktop, DESKTOP, absolutely no reason to kill USB-A on a desktop. I'm sure as people's USB-A peripherals fail or if they actually want a newer one, there will be less need for USB-A, but forcing this is just senseless.

 

[diskrisk]

You seem to have missed the point on the ethernet comparison, ethernet does have a better alternative for the average end user - it's called wifi.

That is a wireless connection. They do not have equal use cases. Comparing Ethernet to WiFi is like comparing an iPad to a TV.

Things like floppies, dvds and cds all had very linear product cycles, ports are different - peripherals like a mouse, monitor or keyboard all remain useful for much longer than rapidly evolving storage capacities. A mouse and keyboard don't benefit from USB-C, there's nothing ground-breaking there.

The first half is correct, yes, peripherals don't obsolesce as fast, but as ports evolve continuing use of an old peripheral just because "it still works perfectly fine" is ultimately worse for the consumer. Consumers do benefit from a USB-C mouse and keyboard for the simple fact that a USB-C transition is ongoing, even if the functionality of the peripherals were the same over USB-A. Nobody is advocating for computer manufacturers to still build Serial or PS/2 ports just because PS/2 mice still work great.

Forcing peripheral manufacturers to adapt technologies consumers don't want isn't beneficial. This isn't how the free market works, when people stop buying USB-A products, the market will shift naturally.

"Technologies consumers don't want" is a stretch. More like "technologies consumers generally don't know about because the mouse they bought comes with the square USB instead of the oval USB, and since my computer has the square USB it should work, right?".

USB-A isn't obsolete and it won't be for awhile, it's more than capable for much of what the average user needs it for. Let's not forget we are talking about a desktop, DESKTOP, absolutely no reason to kill USB-A on a desktop.

Admittedly there is clearly disagreement on what "obsolete" means. For some, obsolete is "it doesn't work well anymore". For others "there's a newer, better alternative, even if this still works". So maybe you don't perceive USB-A as obsolete and that's fair, but that's not good enough of a reason to invalidate the fact that there is still a newer, better alternative. And the fact that it's a desktop doesn't really change that. If your argument is that a desktop (even one like a Mac mini) doesn't need to be as portable as possible, then logically you could make the argument all desktops should come with PS/2 ports, a DisplayPort, VGA and HDMI port, and [inset other ports we've left behind mixed with current ones]. You might like that -- build your own computer then. Most don't care.

 

[ric22]

Seems like a no-brainer if the offer is 5 USB-C ports, with 3 of them being Thunderbolt ports. An adapter is less of a headache to use since the desktop is stationary. I understood the pain in 2016 when the technology was new and required adapters to be carried around, now this is a minor inconvenience at most.

If they can only offer 3 Thunderbolt ports, then it'll be only 3 ports. As we discussed an hour or two ago, Apple don't like to offer ports with a mix of capabilities, making this unlikely.

 

[Chuckeee]

Consumers do benefit from a USB-C mouse and keyboard for the simple fact that a USB-C transition is ongoing, even if the functionality of the peripherals were the same over USB-A.

Just an aside. Many NEW wired mice and keyboards (there are not that many anymore) come with a dongle attached to the end of the connector. It use to be they all had a USB-A connector with a USB-A to UBC-C dongle. But over the last year or so, it’s changed, more NEW wired keyboards and mice are coming with an a USB-C connector with a USB-C to UBC-A dongle instead.

 

[WhisperingBobcat]

Show me a USB-C flash drive that's as tiny and as flush mount as the Lexar JumpDrive S47, SanDisk Cruzer Fit or SanDisk Cruzer Ultra Fit. You can't, because the USB-C connector is too small to add any components inside of it.

And having a USB drive stick out the side of your computer, especially a laptop, is taking unnecessary risks.

My similarly flush Logitech USB mouse receiver (sticks out 1/4 in) has been in my 2014 Macbook Pro for 9 years or so. It has survived past MacOS support, has 1 year left on bootcamped Win10 support, then it will be ChromeFlex OS which I've been testing out booting off a Sandisk Ultrafit that I leave in. A 2015 bluetooth mouse wasn't very good as I recall.

 

[Chuckeee]

If they can only offer 3 Thunderbolt ports, then it'll be only 3 ports. As we discussed an hour or two ago, Apple don't like to offer ports with a mix of capabilities, making this unlikely.

But the 4 port iMac provides a mixture of TB4 ports and USB3 but they are all USB-C and no USB-A

The entry level Mac Studio also comes with a mixture of USB-C “flavors”