Promise Technology Debuts $249 Thunderbolt 3 Dock With 5 USB-A Ports, 2 TB3 Ports and SD Card Slot

[jimthing]

After being involved in the original MR thread (and adding a post with the specs & front/back pix) for all the previous TB3 docks, they are ALL turning out to be a complete disappointment. As each one is either crap on ports but with the high power, or good on ports but without the high power.

Half of us have 15" models, yet all the ones with decent ports only offer ~60W power... WHY?

I'd love to get the OWC one, but it too is only 60W.

I don't know what Promise think they're doing here, but why even bother, if you're just going to copy the drivel other brands before you have already done, MONTHS earlier.

Shoot selves in foot. Yawn.

 

[Eorlas]

Is this the OneConnect box for MacBooks?

 

[carestudio]

Half of us have 15" models, yet all the ones with decent ports only offer ~60W power... WHY?
I'd love to get the OWC one, but it too is only 60W.

Exactly. All 15" MacBook Pro needs 85W charging. Anything lower is not adequate since Apple's charger is 87W. If you think you can do 60W with 15" MBP, you are either using it without any bus powered devices nor using any GPU / CPU power, in that case, 60W might work. If you use 60W and a lot of tasks in the background plus thunderbolt portable drives and GPU drivers, you will find your 15" MBP is discharging slowly instead of charging slowly and sooner or later you will need apple's charger to juice it up when it comes down to 5%.

Save yourself from the trouble by just paying a little bit more.
Belkin, CalDigit, Elgato are selling great docks for Pro-users. And such 85W dock is definitely a right choice for any 15" MBP users.

Belkin one is 350 dollars, not cheap, I know, but good quality. Caldigit one is 269 bucks directly on their site, and their Thunderbolt Station 3has more ports than Belkin and el gato's. all are better than promise's and owc's IMHO

 

[Ries]

After being involved in the original MR thread (and adding a post with the specs & front/back pix) for all the previous TB3 docks, they are ALL turning out to be a complete disappointment. As each one is either crap on ports but with the high power, or good on ports but without the high power.

Half of us have 15" models, yet all the ones with decent ports only offer ~60W power... WHY?

I'd love to get the OWC one, but it too is only 60W.

I don't know what Promise think they're doing here, but why even bother, if you're just going to copy the drivel other brands before you have already done, MONTHS earlier.

Shoot selves in foot. Yawn.

Buys laptop with only "USB-C", complains about ports on needed docks.

 

[theluggage]

but why even bother, if you're just going to copy the drivel other brands before you have already done, MONTHS earlier.

I guess that a lot of these products are just repackaging the same internals from one or two third party component manufacturers, leaving little room for differentiation.

Also - I doubt that "half of us have 15" models" - from what I've seen, the 13" ones are the most popular models, including the non-TB MBP which, with only 2 TB3 ports, really, really needs single-port docking, but only needs 60W.

Has anybody actually tried running a 15" MBP on 60W? Does it "run down" while doing heavy work, or is it just that it won't charge the battery and run off mains at the same time (which would be tolerable for a desktop dock)?

 

[Vicmax]

That's what you need these days to make a usable device out of a Macbook Pro. A dock for over 200 $US in addition to the MacBook Pro that already costs over 2.000 $US. Apple is indeed a totally customer focused company.

Until the whole peripheral industry goes mainstream with USB-C... a necessary evil

 

[manu chao]

HDMI 2.0, no DisplayPort and inadequate power for MB Pro 15”. Pass.

Yeah, inadequate power. A desk-bound user (those docks will overwhelmingly be used on desks) really cannot live with a charging time that is maybe 65% longer [than with the bundled charger].
[doublepost=1511077850][/doublepost]

Has anybody actually tried running a 15" MBP on 60W? Does it "run down" while doing heavy work, or is it just that it won't charge the battery and run off mains at the same time (which would be tolerable for a desktop dock)?

Unless you are pegging all CPU cores constantly, an 60 W charger will still charge the 15" MBP just fine while using it, merely more slowly. Look at the range of battery life times people report, you find numbers from three hours (or even less) upwards. Meaning if running the MBP full throttle results in three hours of battery life (and the same usage while on the 87 W power adaptor maintains the battery charging level), than a usage corresponding to a six hour battery life only requires half as much power, ie, 43.5 W. Therefore a 60 W power supply will still have power left to charge the battery, just more slowly.

And I am sure those numbers are still conservative from my point of view. Pegging all CPU cores (+GPU, full screen brightness) probably results in a battery life even lower, maybe only two hours. Meaning usage resulting in six hours of battery life would only need 29 W. Thus instead of having 58 W of 'charging power' (87 - 29 W), you'd have 31 W (60 - 29 W) of charging power. My guess would then be that using a 60 W power supply (instead of an 87 W power supply), charging during usage might on average take twice as long. And charging while the machine is sleeping might only take 50% longer.
[doublepost=1511078004][/doublepost]

Exactly. All 15" MacBook Pro needs 85W charging. Anything lower is not adequate since Apple's charger is 87W. If you think you can do 60W with 15" MBP, you are either using it without any bus powered devices nor using any GPU / CPU power, in that case, 60W might work. If you use 60W and a lot of tasks in the background plus thunderbolt portable drives and GPU drivers, you will find your 15" MBP is discharging slowly instead of charging slowly and sooner or later you will need apple's charger to juice it up when it comes down to 5%.

Nonsense, see above.

EDIT: Just found some numbers on battery life under very heavy load, of about 80 minutes. Again that means, even if your usual battery life is only four hours, you are only using 80/240 * 87 W = 29 W to power the computer, leaving 31 W to charge its battery.

 

[martinX]

Where's the XLR ports?

 

[bxs]

Exactly. All 15" MacBook Pro needs 85W charging. Anything lower is not adequate since Apple's charger is 87W. If you think you can do 60W with 15" MBP, you are either using it without any bus powered devices nor using any GPU / CPU power, in that case, 60W might work. If you use 60W and a lot of tasks in the background plus thunderbolt portable drives and GPU drivers, you will find your 15" MBP is discharging slowly instead of charging slowly and sooner or later you will need apple's charger to juice it up when it comes down to 5%.

Save yourself from the trouble by just paying a little bit more.
Belkin, CalDigit, Elgato are selling great docks for Pro-users. And such 85W dock is definitely a right choice for any 15" MBP users.

Belkin one is 350 dollars, not cheap, I know, but good quality. Caldigit one is 269 bucks directly on their site, and their Thunderbolt Station 3has more ports than Belkin and el gato's. all are better than promise's and owc's IMHO

This is quite honestly rubbish.... I can run my 15" MBP13,3 all day long with the OWC TB3 Dock connected along with running video, tons of cpu, memory and i/o intensive workload and the battery charge level stays at a solid 100%. The 60 watt power from the OWC TB3 dock is quite sufficient.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Until the whole peripheral industry goes mainstream with USB-C... a necessary evil

You raise a good question: when will USB-C be truly mainstream?

We've had USB-A ports for 20 years... that's why there are now 1.5 billion computers on Earth with USB-A ports. It's quite an established standard.

There are trailblazers like Apple who went "all in" on USB-C with their new laptops... and also some high-end new models from HP and others.

But I wonder when it will be more common for someone to give me a flash drive with USB-C rather than USB-A?

USB-A will be a tough ship to turn considering its massive installed base around the world.

 

[itsamacthing]

60w=day late and dollar short for 15 inch owners

 

[Ken Linger]

You raise a good question: when will USB-C be truly mainstream?

You'll know it became mainstream when a new iPhone comes with a lightning cable that plugs into USB-C without an adapter. In other words, today, you can buy the latest iPhone and the latest MacBook and neither comes with a cable or port compatible with one another.

 

[Michael Scrip]

You'll know it became mainstream when a new iPhone comes with a lightning cable that plugs into USB-C without an adapter. In other words, today, you can buy the latest iPhone and the latest MacBook and neither comes with a cable or port compatible with one another.

I'm well aware that you cannot use the included iPhone cable to plug into a USB-C port without an adapter.

But there's actually a good reason: USB-C ports are rather uncommon in the grand scheme of things.

Most iPhone users aren't MacBook users anyway. So while I see your point with the Macbook example... it simply wouldn't make sense to include a Lightning to USB-C cable in the iPhone box since hardly anyone has USB-C ports on their computers.

And that's what I was talking about earlier... computer peripherals.

I won't consider USB-C "mainstream" until I come across more flash drives with USB-C rather than USB-A

 

[Ken Linger]

@Michael Scrip, that's just my point. Even Apple considers USB-A more mainstream when they're not saying the MB Pro is groundbreaking. They choose a common cable that works with just about any computer out there (except, their own).

For what it's worth, I own both a current MB Pro and iPhone X in case someone wants to label me a H8R.

 

[qawes]

Oh, someone released a 250$ dongle. Great news!

Give me news about my new Mac Pro please.

 

[cclloyd]

Is there a reason all these thunderbolt docks are so expensive?

 

[manu chao]

You raise a good question: when will USB-C be truly mainstream?

We've had USB-A ports for 20 years... that's why there are now 1.5 billion computers on Earth with USB-A ports. It's quite an established standard.

There are trailblazers like Apple who went "all in" on USB-C with their new laptops... and also some high-end new models from HP and others.

But I wonder when it will be more common for someone to give me a flash drive with USB-C rather than USB-A?

USB-A will be a tough ship to turn considering its massive installed base around the world.

The VGA ship took a while to turn, but turn it did eventually. We also had several transitions within the USB family (and not just on the plug-compatible protocol level, like going from version 1 through 2, and on the computer side to USB 3 as well). No, I mean the transition from USB-B to USB mini to USB micro, plus the USB 3 versions of those, even USB-C in a fashion with USB-C smartphones.

You might say they don't count because nothing changed on the computer end of it. But I'd like to describe this differently. What made those transitions much less controversial was that every new device with a new USB plug (B, mini, micro, 3 B, 3 micro, plus all the proprietary ones camera manufacturers seem to love, you could even add USB-C and 30-Pin and Lightning to it) also came with a fitting cable. You still needed to keep a drawer full of USB cables (aka cables with a USB A plug) and often several of them when on the road.

But the key thing was that you didn't need to buy new cables (they came with the device). Even if you could get each for as little as $5 (Lightning & 30-Pin generally cost more), it's the act of having to do something and spend extra money (even if it wasn't much) that's what's grating people so much. USB-C on computers adds to that that you also have to get extra cables for your existing devices.

What will help with the USB-C transition is that things are moving to wireless, even charging.

[doublepost=1511186858][/doublepost]

Is there a reason all these thunderbolt docks are so expensive?

Probably the same reason why every device with TB adds about $200 to a similar device with USB. Lower volume, certification, almost no competition, all make the actual TB chips expensive.

 

[shamino]

There's only one TB3 port after you connect the Mac, so I assume the 2 monitors come from that plus HDMI.

The TB connection itself can embed two DP data streams. Docking stations (including this one) typically pull off one stream for the built-in port (HDMI in this case) and leave the other embedded in the TB data stream for the pass-through port.

Docks and TB dsplays typically can not separate both video streams from the TB data. I'm not sure why, but it appears to be the case.

So if you want two displays, you will probably have to set up one of the following topologies:

• Mac -> Dock -> HDMI Display. Dock -> TB3 display (via TB3 pass-through port)
• Mac -> TB3 display -> Dock -> HDMI display
• Mac -> Dock -> HDMI display. Dock -> a second dock (via TB3 pass-through port) -> HDMI display
• Mac -> Dock -> HDMI display. Dock -> second dock -> DisplayPort display (via TB3 pass-through port and a TB3-DP adapter cable)

Is there a reason all these thunderbolt docks are so expensive?

Partly because TB3 technology is new and manufacturers need to recoup their R&D costs. Partially because there are almost certainly patents and royalty payments involved.

A lot of this is because not as many TB devices have been sold, compared with USB. When you don't sell as many, you need to charge more in order to make back your R&D costs. And if you don't sell as many units, you can't get as good pricing from your parts suppliers.

If TB would become a lot more popular, we would definitely be seeing lower prices.

 

[theluggage]

Docks and TB dsplays typically can not separate both video streams from the TB data. I'm not sure why, but it appears to be the case.

That was an issue with TB1 and TB2 devices - each TB controller could only extract 1 DP signal. However, I don't think this applies to all TB3 docks (e.g. the Caldigit site says of the TS3 "For users who need dual 4K monitors, they can connect a USB-C to HDMI/DVI/VGA video cable to the second Thunderbolt™ 3 port and take advantage of a dual monitor set-up".
(Check before parting with money!)
[doublepost=1511200018][/doublepost]

What will help with the USB-C transition is that things are moving to wireless, even charging.

...of course, that's also going to limit the life of USB-C in the one application where it does, otherwise, make sense - phones and tablets - which will be the first things to go all-wireless with no ports at all.

USB-C is a great replacement for those fugly micro-USB connectors on tiny devices with no space for more than one port. The problem is that Apple is pushing it on powerful laptops and desktops, with plenty of space for ports, where combining unrelated display, power and I/O functions into a very limited number of shared ports is just an unnecessary complication. At least the iMac has kept some of its other ports alongside TB3 (for now).

 

[manu chao]

USB-C is a great replacement for those fugly micro-USB connectors on tiny devices with no space for more than one port. The problem is that Apple is pushing it on powerful laptops and desktops, with plenty of space for ports, where combining unrelated display, power and I/O functions into a very limited number of shared ports is just an unnecessary complication. At least the iMac has kept some of its other ports alongside TB3 (for now).

We had shared display and data ports for a full five years (2011-2015 MBPs) in the form of Thunderbolt ports and that didn't cause any problems. My monitor shipped with five sets of cables (DP, though not mDP, HDMI, DVI, S-Video and Composite Video), none of which worked on the (late) 2008 through 2012 (non-retina) MBPs, which had mDP/TB1 ports. If your monitor had just shipped with another set of cables (USB-C to DP or HDMI), I'm sure your protests would against USB-C would have noticeably less vigorous.

The protests about USB-C only are to a large degree about people expecting that every device ships with enough different cables that no extra purchase is necessary. And most manufacturers tend to comply (note the five cables shipping with my monitor). But Apple simply isn't in the business of shipping extra cables just in case. Apple could have shipped the MBP with, eg, a USB-C to micro USB cable, one more for standard B, one more for USB3-B, one more for micro, one USB-C to Lightning cable, one USB-C to DP, one USB-C to HDMI, and one USB-C to USB-A. Or make that two of each since in contrast to my monitor which only has one input port for each protocol, the MBP has more than one USB-C port.

The second aspect fuelling the dislike of USB-C is that the total number of ports got reduced. If your monitor supports USB-C (or TB3) and can charge your laptop, nobody is going to complain about having to plug in one less cable. But if it doesn't, you are annoyed about having one port less due to the removal of the charging-only port (the number of data-only ports remained constant at four).
[doublepost=1511213326][/doublepost]

Docks and TB dsplays typically can not separate both video streams from the TB data. I'm not sure why, but it appears to be the case.

That was a limitation of TB1 & 2, more specifically of the TB controller chips present in any TB peripheral (dock, TB drive enclosure, TB display). You simply needed a second TB controller which meant you could simply chain a TB1/2 HDD between the second TB port of a dock and a second monitor.

TB3 does not have that limitation anymore, you can connect, via an appropriate cable, the DP or HDMI port of a second monitor to the second TB3 port of a TB3 dock.

 

[theluggage]

We had shared display and data ports for a full five years (2011-2015 MBPs) in the form of Thunderbolt ports and that didn't cause any problems.

I must have missed that long-forgotten 2011 Mac that appeared with a Thunderbolt port and nothing else. My trusty 2011 17" MBP came with this brand new feature called Thunderbolt - built into the existing MiniDP port - but still managed to fit in the same full complement of Ethernet, FireWire800, USB and ExpressCard ports as the 2010 model. A year or so later, the retina MacBook Pros dropped some of those but still retained a good selection.

Plus, now that you mention it, the combined MiniDP/Thunderbolt port in 2011 wasn't a completely brilliant idea: I frequently use my MBP connected to an external display, which rules out the use of a whole raft of cheaper thunderbolt devices that don't provide a "thru" connector that you can hang a display off... but then Thunderbolt was a brand new thing, not something that we'd already come to rely on, and we didn't really lose anything without it - all our ould MiniDP stuff still worked with the TB1 port. Come the 2012 rMBP's and they added a second TB/MiniDP port and HDMI so that Thunderbolt wasn't the only way of attaching an external display.

Oh, and the last couple of displays I've bought have come with MiniDP cables...

The protests about USB-C only are to a large degree about people expecting that every device ships with enough different cables that no extra purchase is necessary.

Maybe for some. For those of us who actually have more than one computer (and, bear in mind, Apple is still selling MacBook Airs, Mac Minis and Mac Pros that have no USB-C), however, it suddenly means that we need two cables for everything - regular USB for our old computers, USB-C for our new ones - or dongles, or an expensive dock... and for the vast majority of USB peripherals there is absolutely no advantage to using USB-C over USB-A/3.0

The second aspect fuelling the dislike of USB-C is that the total number of ports got reduced. If your monitor supports USB-C (or TB3) and can charge your laptop, nobody is going to complain about having to plug in one less cable.

Except that apart from the Apple/LG displays and about one of the available docks, nothing will charge the 15" MBP at full whack... and while 60W sounds as if it will do at a pinch, well... Considering Apple are too tight* to even throw in a charge cable and extension lead with their $100 spare power supply, a USB-C cable with their $1000 iPhone X or a USB-C dongle in with their $2000 laptops, I rather assume that they have a good reason for shipping an 85W power adapter with the 15" MBP...

Also - why this obsession with single-plug docking? I've been using a 27" Cinema Display at work to dock for years, and it must take something like 5 seconds to plug in MagSafe, MiniDP and USB... Not a problem that was crying out for a solution, I feel...

But if it doesn't, you are annoyed about having one port less due to the removal of the charging-only port (the number of data-only ports remained constant at four).

Counting failure:
2015 rMBP: 2 x TB2/miniDP + 2 x USB3/A + 1xHDMI + 1xSD (=6)
2016 MBP: 4 x TB3/USB-C (=4... or 3 if you use one for charging)

2017 MBA: 1 x TB2/miniDP 2xUSB + 1xSD (=4)
2017 non-TB MBP: 2 x TB3/USB-C (=2 or 1 if you use one for charging)

* Order an iMac with a Magic Keyboard (usually comes with a lightning** charge cable) and a Magic Trackpad 2 (likewise, usually comes with a charge cable) and, do you know what? You only get one charge cable! A phrase about the rear end of a camel in a sandstorm comes to mind...

** USB-C clearly not magical enough to charge a Magic Trackpad....

 

[manu chao]

I must have missed that long-forgotten 2011 Mac that appeared with a Thunderbolt port and nothing else. My trusty 2011 17" MBP came with this brand new feature called Thunderbolt - built into the existing MiniDP port - but still managed to fit in the same full complement of Ethernet, FireWire800, USB and ExpressCard ports as the 2010 model. A year or so later, the retina MacBook Pros dropped some of those but still retained a good selection.

And the FW800, Ethernet, ExpressCard ports already disappeared five years ago. Getting two $5 USB A to USB-C brings back the same number of USB A ports as the 2012-2015 MBPs. That's $10 (plus shipping) and two tiny things. Add either a USB-C to DP or HDMI cable and you are set for all non-TB needs.

Plus, now that you mention it, the combined MiniDP/Thunderbolt port in 2011 wasn't a completely brilliant idea: I frequently use my MBP connected to an external display, which rules out the use of a whole raft of cheaper thunderbolt devices that don't provide a "thru" connector that you can hang a display off...

The 2012 retina MBP rectified this with a second TB port. And Firewire had the same issue that some cheap devices only had one FW port. You get what you pay for.

Oh, and the last couple of displays I've bought have come with MiniDP cables...

Again proving my point that the main issue here is the need to buy extra cables, as long as all needed cables shipped with the devices, all was honky dory, even if this means that three of four cables shipping with your display remain unused in a drawer.

Maybe for some. For those of us who actually have more than one computer (and, bear in mind, Apple is still selling MacBook Airs, Mac Minis and Mac Pros that have no USB-C), however, it suddenly means that we need two cables for everything - regular USB for our old computers, USB-C for our new ones

And that was any different when you got your first FW400, first FW800, first USB3, first USB mini, first USB micro, first lightning peripheral? Suddenly you also needed an extra cable, while most likely still needing the ones you already had (but since the extra cable came with the device for free, few people complained). There was a time I had to travel with up to five different cables (Lightning, 30-Pin, USB mini, USB micro and Magsafe). You cannot make an omelette without breaking some eggs, meaning you cannot move to a new standard without some extra work. And getting a handful of small, inexpensive USB A to USB C adaptors solves probably a good deal of your extra cable needs. Power supply and monitor cables were either needed already separately for each computer (or not needed at all for iMacs).

When the price of a Mac is increased by $100, most people will protest only very modestly. When one needs to buy extra cables for $100, a riot is almost started.

Except that apart from the Apple/LG displays and about one of the available docks, nothing will charge the 15" MBP at full whack... and while 60W sounds as if it will do at a pinch, well...

And 90% of all users won't even notice a difference. External displays and docks are used overwhelmingly on desks where an extra hour or two of charging time needed is very rarely an issue. It's when you are mobile and only have limited time close to an electrical outlet that the difference between 60 and 87 W becomes important.

Considering Apple are too tight* to even throw in a charge cable and extension lead with their $100 spare power supply, a USB-C cable with their $1000 iPhone X or a USB-C dongle in with their $2000 laptops, I rather assume that they have a good reason for shipping an 85W power adapter with the 15" MBP...

The math is very simple. The shortest battery life reported for the 2015/16 15" MBPs is around 80 minutes under a very taxing load. It is under this load that 87 W are needed to just keep the battery charge at a constant level. If your usual routine gives you five hours of battery life, you only draw an average of 29 W in terms of consumption. Meaning a 60 W power supply has a spare charging capacity of 31 W while the 87 W supply as a spare charging capacity of 58 W. Or in other words, charging takes about twice as long. If you sleep the laptop (when it might only draw about 5 W), the difference is 55 vs 82 W, or a charging time that is about 50% longer.

Also - why this obsession with single-plug docking? I've been using a 27" Cinema Display at work to dock for years, and it must take something like 5 seconds to plug in MagSafe, MiniDP and USB... Not a problem that was crying out for a solution, I feel...

The plugging in is the lesser aspect, having less cables sticking out of your laptop is the more important benefit. And again, if Apple had kept all existing ports (except for converting the TB 2 to TB3/USB-C ports), I don't think anybody would complain about only needing to plug in one cable for video and power (and possibly some data needs).

It really boils down to having to spend a rather limited amount of money on extra cables and on having to deal with a few more cables. Plus for some people needing more than four ports.

Counting failure:
2015 rMBP: 2 x TB2/miniDP + 2 x USB3/A + 1xHDMI + 1xSD (=6)
2016 MBP: 4 x TB3/USB-C (=4... or 3 if you use one for charging)

2017 MBA: 1 x TB2/miniDP 2xUSB + 1xSD (=4)
2017 non-TB MBP: 2 x TB3/USB-C (=2 or 1 if you use one for charging)

It's a controlled gamble. Likelihood of needing wired solutions vs using wireless solutions (eg, for iOS device synching, USB sticks) is going down. And likelihood of USB-C/TB3 displays (vs plain DP/HDMI displays) going up.

And btw, there is no such thing as a non-TB MBP. It's simply a two TB3 port vs a four TB3 port MBP.

 

[jimthing]

After all the above analysis, the main question still remains:

Why do only a few of these TB3 docks do ~85W?

If a few brands can make them at this power, then why on earth do most of the others not do it. It makes absolutely no sense, as the pricing remains similar amongst them all regardless ($250-350), making the ones that don't bother much less attractive to buy, and so they're essentially shooting themselves in the foot if they want to sell the most they can.

I wish someone from one of the companies that makes them would let us all know, as surely there's some kind of technical reason or something...??

 

[saulinpa]

The little mac was left off the list
2017 12" MB: 1 x TB3/USB-C (=1)

Most don't need 85W and so most docks don't provide 85W.

Some forget that for Apple "pro" now means "prosumer" not "professional." They and others don't envision a fully loaded MBP to be used for anything other than YouTube.

 

[theluggage]

And that was any different when you got your first FW400, first FW800, first USB3, first USB mini, first USB micro, first lightning peripheral?

Lets see - USB3 was ten times faster than USB2 and yet USB2 devices - which would have been worth putting up with a few dongles for, except we didn't need them because old USB1/2 devices still plugged straight in without an adapter.

c.f. USB-C which is just a plain old USB3 port with an incompatible plug inconveniently combined with a knobbled DisplayPort output (capped at DP1.2a by the Intel TB3 chipset even on new Macs with DP1.4-capable GPUs) and a charging function for people who can't spare 2 seconds to plug in a second cable.

Oh, right, and there are a few devices that support USB 3.1g2 which is as fast as... wow, the Thunderbolt 1 ports we had in 2011 (and which works perfectly well over USB-A connectors anyway). Magical.

...and, anyway, FW800 only ever replaced FW400. MicroUSB only ever replaced MiniUSB. Lightning only ever replaced 30-pin. Nobody ever said, before, "hey, the new WhizzBangPort is so good that we're going to use it for everything including a whole bunch of previously unrelated functions" - unless you mourn for the days when SCSI, ADB, RS423 and Localtalk made the Mac completely dependent on expensive made-for-Mac peripherals.

To be fair, TB3 is a bit more impressive as a TB2 replacement, but as a replacement for USB-A, USB-C is a big "so what".