Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

nicho

macrumors 601
Feb 15, 2008
4,214
3,202
You trashtalk older computers because you said that they needed to have all bungled mess of cables and thunderbolt fixes that. However you conveniently ignore the fact that thunderbolt has been around for about 6 years now and instead you make the comparison to.... FIREWIRE?

So again; what was stopping you from having a dock for the past 6 years with TB1 and TB2?

I make the comparison to Firewire as it was a port available on older Macbook Pros.

And what stopped me plugging in a single cable to cable rather than two with TB1 and TB2? I'll leave you to work that out.

In case you missed my point, which I think you did, it's that Thunderbolt is nothing but a good thing, and enabling people to use docks shouldn't be derided.
 
Last edited:

MrX8503

macrumors 68020
Sep 19, 2010
2,292
1,614
Just to clarify, the 13" MBP Escape has only two TB3 ports (and a MBA-class CPU). The 13" MBP w/ Touchbar has four TB3 ports, but only the ones on the left side can deliver 40 Gbit/s, the ones on the right side only offer 20 Gbit/s (which is due to running out of PCIe lanes coming from the CPU). On the 15" MBP, all four TB3 ports can deliver 40 Gbit/s (though obviously not all four simultaneously. It is my understanding, that you can have 40 Gbit/s distributed as you wish between the two left ports and 40 Gbit/s distributed as you wish between the two right ports.

I believe that's it.

The 13" has 1 TB3 controller and the 15" has 2. For the 13" the controller is on the left. For the 15", it's one on each side.
 

hotgril

Suspended
Jul 4, 2017
128
56
Artsakh, Armenia
So again; what was stopping you from having a dock for the past 6 years with TB1 and TB2?
TB2 was also meant for that. It did the job pretty well. The problems were that it didn't carry power to charge the laptop, macOS didn't officially support eGPUs over it, and accessories were expensive because almost nobody besides Apple used it. Everything is supposed to switch to the type C connector. Question is how long will it take, and who at Apple is living in a fantasy where type A is no longer in use (plus SD cards and ethernet).
[doublepost=1500877062][/doublepost]
Yea, I had to return a 3rd party TB Ethernet adapter too, and get the Apple one, for my MB Air. The 3rd party one, kinda, sorta worked, which made it even worse, as I did a quick test and then went on a trip, and *then* started to discover how flaky it was. (Can't recall what brand, but it was a well known brand, not something generic.)
My Apple adaptor was flaky. Sometimes randomly wouldn't work when I connect it, then I'd reconnect and have it work. Then I lost it. **** dongles.
[doublepost=1500877461][/doublepost]
No - it doesn't.

USB-C dock: http://www.caldigit.com/usb-3-1-usb-c-dock/
Thunderbolt 3 dock: http://www.caldigit.com/thunderbolt-3-dock/thunderbolt-station-3-lite/index-uk.asp

The reason they mention Thunderbolt 3 is that it will work on a Thunderbolt 3 port because all Thunderbolt 3 ports are also USB-C ports supporting USB 3.1, but the "USB-C" dock in question connects to the host computer using USB 3.1 and USB-C DisplayPort alternate mode (which physically allocates wire pairs in the USB-C cable to USB 3.1 or DisplayPort). The more expensive "Thunderbolt 3" docks connect to the host using the faster Thunderbolt 3 protocols (which can carry 2x 4-lane DisplayPort 1.2 streams as part of the Thunderbolt signal). The two products look and act similarly, but the Thunderbolt one offers significantly higher performance. In particular, the wheels come off a USB-C dock as soon as you connect a 4k@60Hz display because (until DisplayPort 1.3/1.4 support rolls along) it needs all 4 high-speed data lanes, leaving just the legacy USB 2.0 lane.

Argh indeed.
*sigh* You're right. I just fell for it again. "The USB-C Dock unleashes the full potential of Thunderbolt™ 3 and USB-C computers" made me think it was TB but also could fall back to USB on computers without TB. And they kept saying "Thunderbolt type C" everywhere.
 
Last edited:

theluggage

macrumors 604
Jul 29, 2011
7,475
7,314
And they kept saying "Thunderbolt type C" everywhere.

Second biggest mistake of the whole "USB-C" enterprise: calling the connector & related cable protocol USB-anything. Call the plug a "Uniconnector", "Smartplug" , "Covfefe" or whatever and some (but not all) of the confusion goes away.

Biggest mistake: not reading enough XKCD...

Meanwhile, I'm waiting for something that makes sense to sit on the pedestal of iMac, e.g.:
  • Thunderbolt 3, with daisychain connector (for USB 3.1g2, TB3 or external displays)
  • Shedload of front-facing USB 3 'A' ports - at least 4 (so I don't have to grub around the back of the iMac to plug in pen drives)
  • Front-facing headphone jack, rear-facing line out & SPDIF.
  • I could take or leave extra USB-C sockets: anything that actually needs USB-C - i.e. 3.1gen2 devices - would be better off connected directly to the iMac's other USB-C rather than sharing bandwidth/latency with other devices. Anything else will work fine off a USB3 'A' port (and unless its made by Apple will typically come with an adapter)
  • Ethernet not important
  • DisplayPort (mini or full) nice but not vital.
Everything at the moment is (understandably) geared to MacBook Pros - even down to USB hubs with a tiny captive USB-C cable.
 

manu chao

macrumors 604
Jul 30, 2003
7,219
3,031
I believe that's it.

The 13" has 1 TB3 controller and the 15" has 2. For the 13" the controller is on the left. For the 15", it's one on each side.
No, the 13" MBP (w/ Touchbar) has two TB3 controllers, one on each side. The one on the right is just starved off PCIe lanes. With only one controller, the 13" MBP (w/ Touchbar) could not get 40 Gbit/s on the left side and 20 Gbit/s on the right side simultaneously.
[doublepost=1500902937][/doublepost]
"The USB-C Dock unleashes the full potential of Thunderbolt™ 3 and USB-C computers" made me think it was TB but also could fall back to USB on computers without TB. And they kept saying "Thunderbolt type C" everywhere.
Thunderbolt type C is a synonym for TB3. In the same way as Thunderbolt mDP would be a synonym for TB1 & TB2. Though neither is a very useful synonym.
 

WildCowboy

Administrator/Editor
Staff member
Jan 20, 2005
18,375
2,801
So now that you have reviewed all the major docks, which one is best?
For me, I think I like OWC's best. I use dual 5K displays, so the 60W charging on OWC's dock isn't an issue for me. The 5 USB ports is really the key with that one. SD card slot is also a nice option to have, although I rarely have need for one.

Otherwise I like the Elgato best. Slimmest design by a hair, looks good, supports standalone charging.
 

manu chao

macrumors 604
Jul 30, 2003
7,219
3,031
Everything is supposed to switch to the type C connector. Question is how long will it take, and who at Apple is living in a fantasy where type A is no longer in use (plus SD cards and ethernet).
You mean the fantasy world where the 2017 iMac doesn't have USB-A and Ethernet ports or neither an SD card reader?

The real question is, how long will USB-A linger? As long as VGA did after DCI first appeared on Macs in 2002? How do we get from A to B (or rather from A to C)? Let's say in an ideal world the MBPs had four TB3 plus two USB-A ports (only the 17" MBP ever had more than two USB-A ports), and while we are at it, also an SD card slot. And let's say most PCs also shipped with both USB-C and USB-A ports. What incentive would any user have to get USB-C instead of USB-A peripherals? And thus what incentive would peripheral manufacturers have to ship USB-C instead of USB-A cables?

The main selling point of USB-C is its versatility, meaning any USB-C port could be turned into several different things (USB 3, TB3, if supported by the computer, laptop charging, DP, HDMI). But as long as the computer still has all those other ports (obviously excluding TB3), that versatility doesn't really add anything. The incentives to switch to USB-C on your peripherals are thus more subtle:
  1. Laptop charging through peripheral (or only one charging brick to charge both peripheral and laptop)
  2. Bi-directional plug
  3. Cable unification (ie, reducing the need to carry different kinds of cables for charging and peripheral connections, though since not all USB-C cables are created equal that is still a dicy proposition)
There is also the ability to use USB-C docks which in itself is not a reason to get USB-C peripherals (and is related to point (1) above, and in fact removes this point as a reason for peripherals to get USB-C).
 
Last edited:

MrX8503

macrumors 68020
Sep 19, 2010
2,292
1,614
No, the 13" MBP (w/ Touchbar) has two TB3 controllers, one on each side. The one on the right is just starved off PCIe lanes. With only one controller, the 13" MBP (w/ Touchbar) could not get 40 Gbit/s on the left side and 20 Gbit/s on the right side simultaneously.
That makes sense.
 

hotgril

Suspended
Jul 4, 2017
128
56
Artsakh, Armenia
You mean the fantasy world where the 2017 iMac doesn't have USB-A and Ethernet ports or neither an SD card reader?

The real question is, how long will USB-A linger? As long as VGA did after DCI first appeared on Macs in 2002? How do we get from A to B (or rather from A to C)? Let's say in an ideal world the MBPs had four TB3 plus two USB-A ports (only the 17" MBP ever had more than two USB-A ports), and while we are at it, also an SD card slot. And let's say most PCs also shipped with both USB-C and USB-A ports. What incentive would any user have to get USB-C instead of USB-A peripherals? And thus what incentive would peripheral manufacturers have to ship USB-C instead of USB-A cables?
If type C is actually significantly better, people will use it without being forced to. If it isn't, why are we bothering? And it is, but adoption naturally takes some time. Android phones have already adopted it, which matters a lot more because Apple has never had any influence over the port standards, even though they've been pretending they do since 1999. Look how long it took for them to concede and put regular HDMI output in MacBooks instead of this weird mini DVI and mini DisplayPort crap they've insisted on, just in time for HDMI to get phased out. Also, there is absolutely no replacement for the SD card slot in the MacBook, not even with dongles.

Also, if they want to force people to type C, why did they put type A on the iMac? Well, it doesn't matter because "nobody" buys desktop Macs anyway, nor does Apple care about them. There's a bigger problem, which is the iPhone doesn't use USB-C. You need an adaptor to connect an iPhone to a MacBook. WTF.
[doublepost=1500908981][/doublepost]
Second biggest mistake of the whole "USB-C" enterprise: calling the connector & related cable protocol USB-anything. Call the plug a "Uniconnector", "Smartplug" , "Covfefe" or whatever and some (but not all) of the confusion goes away.
Yeah, it's really going to confuse the general public. Imagine you don't know much about these things. You'll have absolutely no idea what you're buying. This separate connector and protocol thing sounds really great to engineers (engineering 101: decouple everything), but I think they forgot to consult a marketing department about it, or more likely they couldn't feasibly create one standard combination of protocols.
 
Last edited:

theluggage

macrumors 604
Jul 29, 2011
7,475
7,314
The main selling point of USB-C is its versatility, meaning any USB-C port could be turned into several different things (USB 3, TB3, if supported by the computer, laptop charging, DP, HDMI).

Actually, I'd say that the main selling point of USB-C is compactness - it is small enough to fit on phones, tablets and ultra-slim notebooks, and combines a charge, headphone, sync and video port into one, meaning only one hole in the case. Mobile/tablet users have no real expectation of using more than one of those at once without a dock and don't really have a stack of legacy USB peripherals to connect. The existing Micro USB 3 connector was a train wreck.

USB-C is great on a phone or tablet. Its probably OK on a 12" MacBook (maybe) that sets out to be as thin as possible. If you believe that everybody will be switching to tablets then that's the beginning and end of the argument.

However, if you prefer a proper computer - i.e. a desktop, or a desktop-replacement laptop - its a pain in the neck, making you buy a load of extra adapters, that doesn't really have a unique selling point unless you're using the new features of Thunderbolt 3.
  • 10Gbps USB? Plenty of PC motherboards offer 10Gbps USB over a USB-A connector - typical config seems to use the Intel controller to provide 1xTB3 port plus a (usually red) USB-A socket with 10Gbps support.
  • New USB-C peripherals? Unless Apple is selling them, they come with USB-A cables!
  • Charging/Powering your laptop? You're blocking one of your USB/Video ports just for power - unless you carry a dock around - and lots of third-party chargers, cables etc.
  • Single cable docking? That was a good idea when 2560x1440 was a really high resolution. A single 4k/UHD display @ 60Hz via a USB-C cable only leaves room for a USB 2 connection. Thunderbolt does better (at twice the price) but a 5k display still takes half the bandwidth.
  • Display connection? USB-C could become popular for consumer displays intended as docks for ultraportable notebooks or tablets, but high-end/pro graphics/gaming displays will keep DisplayPort/HDMI because that's what desktop PCs and workstations have on their graphics cards. DisplayPort 1.4 will support 5k - and its already rolling out on current model PCIe GPUs, but I haven't heard of any computer with a USB-C port that supports it (USB-C alt mode spec supports it, TB3 spec doesn't - and many computers are using the TB3 chipset to drive their USB-C ports).
So, just got an iMac - dropped $40 on new USB-C displayport cables to drive my existing external displays (one 4k one standard def) - both TB3/USB-C ports now occupied unless I spring for a dock. Now, there is an improvement over the old iMac - I could add a TB3 dock that could probably drive both of those displays and still have bandwidth for some USB3 devices, or I could get a cheaper USB-C dock that would do the SD display + USB3. Plus there's 40GBps TB3 should I need it... but, frankly, I'd have preferred 2xTB3 for high-speed data and 1 or more Mini DisplayPort for displays... There's plenty of room (more if Apple had eliminated the Spinning Rust bay!)

I'm assuming that the iMac only has two TB3s because all the internal PCIe lanes are used (I mean, Apple wouldn't just knobble it to sell more iMac Pros, would they...?) but that wouldn't stop them adding a DisplayPort (and I believe the GPUs support DisplayPort 1.4 if they don't have to go through the Intel TB3 chipset).
 

Cronbo

Suspended
Sep 11, 2016
40
154
Yep. I loved disconnecting and reconnecting 6+ different devices (including ethernet) from a non-retina MBP regularly. enabling people to choose to have everything (including the power supply) plugged into a single cable dock? absolute dick move. shame on apple.

Forcing users to pay $300 extra for what was once built in to a so-called professional laptop IS shameful. They could have simply ADDED a new port, at least for the first few models as the new standard proliferates. I guess some people like being foi-gras'ed...
 

theluggage

macrumors 604
Jul 29, 2011
7,475
7,314
Not in a format that could drive multiple high resolution screens and deliver power over a single connection.

No, it needed two connections - one for dock and one for power. Oh the humanity!
...and it could manage two 1440p displays which was what passed for "high res" until recently. Or, it could handle a single 4k display.

...and if you actually look into the details of how TB3 and USB-C handle "multiple high resolution screens" you'll find a catalog if ifs and buts: USB-C can't handle more than one 4k on the Mac and if you want 60Hz then any other devices on the hub only get a USB 2 connection. Thunderbolt 3 does better, but if you want 2x5k you need to use two ports, and a 5k (or 2 x 4k) slurps half of that bandwidth - so if you want displays and high-bandwidth data transfer you'll still end up spreading it across multiple ports.

Anyway, replacing the existing TB2 ports on the MBP with TB3 isn't the issue - its dropping all the other ports in order to provide 4 of the things (and to shave an unnecessary few mm from a system that was already thin and light for its power) - so you no longer have the option of plugging in six things without buying a hub/dock - that has people annoyed.

Thank goodness they didn't do the same thing to the iMac (although keeping a MiniDisplayPort or two would have been good).
 

cult hero

macrumors 65816
Jun 6, 2005
1,181
1,028
I wanted to add, as someone who used both the OWC and Elgato Thunderbolt 2 hubs extensively:

The Elgato had fewer ports, but was cheaper and unlike the OWC, actually worked in Windows. I never had an issue with this hub and for the price it was great. This isn't an issue with the TB3 versions—both support Windows—but I had some sleep/wake issues with OWC.

These devices, as have been pointed out, are basically docking stations. Expensive? Sure, but factor in the cost of a second charger when you look at the price.

Do you "need" one? No. But I've been on the "single plug at the desk" since February and it's awesome.

For those of you with more esoteric/legacy needs: you're probably never going to find the perfect hub. For those of you who need like, 10 USB A ports, I hate to break it to you but you're a niche demographic. The already small demographic of, "I'll pay $300 for a standalone docking station" doesn't need the prices raised and footprints increased by features that an even smaller subset will used. I'm surprised the OWC still has FireWire on it.
 

manu chao

macrumors 604
Jul 30, 2003
7,219
3,031
Actually, I'd say that the main selling point of USB-C is compactness - it is small enough to fit on phones, tablets and ultra-slim notebooks, and combines a charge, headphone, sync and video port into one, meaning only one hole in the case. Mobile/tablet users have no real expectation of using more than one of those at once without a dock and don't really have a stack of legacy USB peripherals to connect. The existing Micro USB 3 connector was a train wreck.
You are correct, that is one point I forgot to mention. Partially probably because on a day-to-day basis I only have to deal with the USB 2 version of USB micro, which doesn't differ in size much from USB-C, and thus the weirdness of USB 3 micro had slipped my mind.
  • Charging/Powering your laptop? You're blocking one of your USB/Video ports just for power - unless you carry a dock around - and lots of third-party chargers, cables etc.
  • Single cable docking? That was a good idea when 2560x1440 was a really high resolution. A single 4k/UHD display @ 60Hz via a USB-C cable only leaves room for a USB 2 connection. Thunderbolt does better (at twice the price) but a 5k display still takes half the bandwidth.
  • Display connection? USB-C could become popular for consumer displays intended as docks for ultraportable notebooks or tablets, but high-end/pro graphics/gaming displays will keep DisplayPort/HDMI because that's what desktop PCs and workstations have on their graphics cards. DisplayPort 1.4 will support 5k - and its already rolling out on current model PCIe GPUs, but I haven't heard of any computer with a USB-C port that supports it (USB-C alt mode spec supports it, TB3 spec doesn't - and many computers are using the TB3 chipset to drive their USB-C ports).
You are looking at this the wrong way. Charging via USB-C is not blocking one of your USB/video ports for power. A pure power, USB or video port is blocking valuable real estate from being used for other purposes.

So, just got an iMac - dropped $40 on new USB-C displayport cables to drive my existing external displays (one 4k one standard def) - both TB3/USB-C ports now occupied unless I spring for a dock.
And how much did you drop on FW400 to FW800 cables and mDP to DVI adaptors when that transition happened? I 'had' to buy two of each back then. And, I think, you have to admit that adding two additional displays to an iMac is a very niche application.
I'm assuming that the iMac only has two TB3s because all the internal PCIe lanes are used (I mean, Apple wouldn't just knobble it to sell more iMac Pros, would they...?) but that wouldn't stop them adding a DisplayPort (and I believe the GPUs support DisplayPort 1.4 if they don't have to go through the Intel TB3 chipset).
I was surprised as well that the new iMac only got two TB3 ports while the 15" MBP got four TB3 ports. The chipset, at least in the 27" iMac, isn't really lower spec than the one in the 15" MBP. Sure, they also have two USB 3 ports (which I have to believe are 5 Gbit/s ones if not specified otherwise) and Gigabit Ethernet. But the only big difference I can think of is the graphic card needing more PCIe lanes.
[doublepost=1500922289][/doublepost]
Look how long it took for them to concede and put regular HDMI output in MacBooks instead of this weird mini DVI and mini DisplayPort crap they've insisted on, just in time for HDMI to get phased out.
There are many people who prefer mDP to HDMI or are at least indifferent about it. A mDP to DVI or HDMI adaptor is a cheap and simple affair. I cannot remember having seen an HDMI to mDP adaptor however.
Also, there is absolutely no replacement for the SD card slot in the MacBook, not even with dongles.
Because you couldn't get an external SD card reader? Or is a dongle the most you could tolerate and an external card reader is simply too much?
There's a bigger problem, which is the iPhone doesn't use USB-C. You need an adaptor to connect an iPhone to a MacBook. WTF.
No, you don't need a dongle. You need a cable. A USB-C to Lightning cable to be precise. Not dissimilar to needing a USB-A to Lightning cable before the 2016 MBPs & 2015 MB. Or a USB-A to USB micro cable for Android phones for many years. BTW, do Android phones with USB-C ports ship with a USB-C to USB-C cable or with a USB-C to USB-A cable?
[doublepost=1500922289][/doublepost]
Forcing users to pay $300 extra for what was once built in to a so-called professional laptop IS shameful.
A professional laptop should come with 13 ports (that, eg, the OWC dock offers)?
They could have simply ADDED a new port, at least for the first few models as the new standard proliferates.
Most definitely not. At least two, given that one is needed for charging. Unless you meant to either keep two 'charging' ports (one traditional, one USB-C) or to implement USB-C half-assed by not allowing charging over it.
 
Last edited:

theluggage

macrumors 604
Jul 29, 2011
7,475
7,314
You are looking at this the wrong way. Charging via USB-C is not blocking one of your USB/video ports for power. A pure power, USB or video port is blocking valuable real estate from being used for other purposes.

Maybe true on a phone or tablet ... but on a 13" or 15" laptop? The previous models had space for 2xTB2, 2xUSB A, HDMI, MagSafe, an SD card slot and a 20% bigger battery and could certainly not be accused of being bricks.

And how much did you drop on FW400 to FW800 cables and mDP to DVI adaptors when that transition happened?

Yes: annoying and expensive connector changes are annoying and expensive. Still, FW400 was a bottleneck for hard drives at the time, and FW800 was far better than USB2.

DVI connectors were huge c.f. MiniDP, and MiniDP outperforms DVI so there was an obvious upside for laptops - MiniDP to USB-C is definitely "diminishing returns" and in terms of the sort of displays you can connect USB-C doesn't offer any more than MiniDP.

And, I think, you have to admit that adding two additional displays to an iMac is a very niche application.

Two displays is niche, while needing more than 5-20Gbps i/o provided by good old Thunderbolt 2 and USB 3 isn't?
When one of the USPs of the MBP is that it can drive two 5k displays?

Virtually everybody at my workplace has dual displays or a laptop + external - and they're mostly just running Office. Virtually nobody using anything faster than USB3.

But the only big difference I can think of is the graphic card needing more PCIe lanes.

System report on the iMac says 16x PCIe for the GPU... I assume the MBP is the same (if you have one it should show up under Graphics/Displays in System Report). The MBP may not have any USB3 type A ports, but it will use USB3 internally for the trackpad, keyboard, bluetooth, camera etc. The iMac does add an Ethernet controller and - I think the most likely culprit - a SATA interface to support those inexplicable spinning rust options.
 

SteveW928

macrumors 68000
May 28, 2010
1,834
1,380
Victoria, B.C. Canada
Maybe true on a phone or tablet ... but on a 13" or 15" laptop? The previous models had space for 2xTB2, 2xUSB A, HDMI, MagSafe, an SD card slot and a 20% bigger battery and could certainly not be accused of being bricks.

I'd have to agree here. I think they could have squeezed in at least a USB-A to ease the transition, maybe an SD. It's a pain, when roaming around with a laptop, to have to deal with adapters and dongles to do basic stuff. If you're at a desk, then it's no big deal. But, I don't think Apple should *assume* everyone uses their laptops at desks with docks.

Two displays is niche, while needing more than 5-20Gbps i/o provided by good old Thunderbolt 2 and USB 3 isn't?
When one of the USPs of the MBP is that it can drive two 5k displays?

Virtually everybody at my workplace has dual displays or a laptop + external - and they're mostly just running Office. Virtually nobody using anything faster than USB3.

I don't think either is exactly niche. A lot of pro users have multiple displays, but a lot of users also have to get at external data, due to the incredibly small size of the built-in storage. Many probably do both at once.

If you're out and about in a coffee shop, then maybe not. But, you might still need external storage if you're working on big stuff. (Though, yea, USB 3 is probably fast enough for most of them.)
 

manu chao

macrumors 604
Jul 30, 2003
7,219
3,031
Maybe true on a phone or tablet ... but on a 13" or 15" laptop? The previous models had space for 2xTB2, 2xUSB A, HDMI, MagSafe, an SD card slot and a 20% bigger battery and could certainly not be accused of being bricks.
Put it like this: Apple is not redesigning a laptop to be 5% smaller and lighter. When it redesigns the case it wants to achieve a clearly noticeable difference. To do that is has to be stingy with space (which generally correlates with weight) wherever it can. Note the removal of the headphone jack on the iPhone 7.
Yes: annoying and expensive connector changes are annoying and expensive. Still, FW400 was a bottleneck for hard drives at the time, and FW800 was far better than USB2.

DVI connectors were huge c.f. MiniDP, and MiniDP outperforms DVI so there was an obvious upside for laptops - MiniDP to USB-C is definitely "diminishing returns" and in terms of the sort of displays you can connect USB-C doesn't offer any more than MiniDP.
Obviously, switching from mDP to USB-C for the Thunderbolt connector wasn't only (or even mainly) about size. It's main thing is about being more versatile.
Two displays is niche, while needing more than 5-20Gbps i/o provided by good old Thunderbolt 2 and USB 3 isn't?
When one of the USPs of the MBP is that it can drive two 5k displays?
40 Gbit/s is not niche if you consider one 5K display not niche anymore. And once you have one 40 Gbit/s port, why not make them all 40 Gbit/s where possible.
Virtually everybody at my workplace has dual displays or a laptop + external - and they're mostly just running Office. Virtually nobody using anything faster than USB3.
But are those all 4K and 5K displays?
 

nicho

macrumors 601
Feb 15, 2008
4,214
3,202
No, it needed two connections - one for dock and one for power. Oh the humanity!

It's nice to be dismissive, but consider what's at the other end of those connections. Formerly, you needed a power brick as well as your dock. So either, you had to then also unplug your power brick, wrap the cable and toss it in your bag - or buy another. The fact that you no longer need the power brick when attached to the dock saves more time/effort or money than simply an extra connection.
 

shareef777

Suspended
Jul 26, 2005
2,445
3,276
Chicago, IL
For those that need 10 USB-A ports you can still get the dock and plug in a 10 USB-A hub into one of the USB-A ports on the dock. The manufacturer won't drive up the cost by including it in by default for the small number of customers that want it. Especially when the customer base of these docks is extremely small to begin with.

These docks are not meant to be mobile.
 

hotgril

Suspended
Jul 4, 2017
128
56
Artsakh, Armenia
There are many people who prefer mDP to HDMI or are at least indifferent about it. A mDP to DVI or HDMI adaptor is a cheap and simple affair. I cannot remember having seen an HDMI to mDP adaptor however.
There's no HDMI to mDP adaptor* because nobody ever wants to do that. TVs, monitors, etc all use HDMI. It's great being able to use your port without having to carry around a dongle, especially because half the time you probably won't know in advance that you'll need it.

*I actually don't know. If it exists, I can't Google it. It gives me the other way around.
Because you couldn't get an external SD card reader? Or is a dongle the most you could tolerate and an external card reader is simply too much?
No, because of this:
1495517971860408492.jpg

A common trick for adding 128-256 GiB of cheap, sleek, expandable storage with no real downside. This is how I have local Time Machine backups on the go, plus my big files go in there. But even if you didn't do this, SD card readers tend to be rather clunky.
No, you don't need a dongle. You need a cable. A USB-C to Lightning cable to be precise. Not dissimilar to needing a USB-A to Lightning cable before the 2016 MBPs & 2015 MB. Or a USB-A to USB micro cable for Android phones for many years. BTW, do Android phones with USB-C ports ship with a USB-C to USB-C cable or with a USB-C to USB-A cable?
You need specifically a Lightning to USB-C cable, which doesn't come with it and is $25 to buy from Apple. And it only works with Apple's devices of course. IDK about all Android phones. The Nexus ones do come with a USB-C double-ended cable.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bladerunner2000

zhenya

macrumors 604
Jan 6, 2005
6,929
3,677
There's no HDMI to mDP adaptor* because nobody ever wants to do that. TVs, monitors, etc all use HDMI. It's great being able to use your port without having to carry around a dongle, especially because half the time you probably won't know in advance that you'll need it.

*I actually don't know. If it exists, I can't Google it. It gives me the other way around.

It doesn’t exist because it’s not possible without an expensive active adapter. This was why Apple went with Mini DisplayPort for years; because it is flexible. The same reason they went with 2x or 4x Thunderbolt 3 this time around. Maximum power, maximum flexibility, minimum space.
 

shareef777

Suspended
Jul 26, 2005
2,445
3,276
Chicago, IL
It doesn’t exist because it’s not possible without an expensive active adapter. This was why Apple went with Mini DisplayPort for years; because it is flexible. The same reason they went with 2x or 4x Thunderbolt 3 this time around. Maximum power, maximum flexibility, minimum space.

Im fine with the current MBP, but can't deny that is a poor excuse by Apple and is very impactful to a majority of users. They could have kept everything the same and just added the 4 TB3 ports. Plenty of space considering the left two could have gone in place of the TB2 ports and the two right anywhere else. Or they could have just put one port on each side if they kept all the existing ones.

The decision was purely aesthetic. What's surprising me is that so many people still don't understand that is what you get with Apple. Either bare through it or look elsewhere. They won't change their ways as long as they're making money.

Feels like they admitted the failure of the current MacPro only because of its namesake (trashcan Mac). They probably aren't too happy about that image.
 

manu chao

macrumors 604
Jul 30, 2003
7,219
3,031
No, because of this:
1495517971860408492.jpg

A common trick for adding 128-256 GiB of cheap, sleek, expandable storage with no real downside. This is how I have local Time Machine backups on the go, plus my big files go in there. But even if you didn't do this, SD card readers tend to be rather clunky.
Your original statement was simply incomplete: "Also, there is absolutely no replacement for the SD card slot [for certain uses] in the MacBook, not even with dongles."
You need specifically a Lightning to USB-C cable, which doesn't come with it and is $25 to buy from Apple. And it only works with Apple's devices of course.
The USB-C to Lightning cable doesn't work on PCs with USB-C ports? Or the USB-A to Lightning cable worked with non-Apple phones?
The Nexus ones do come with a USB-C double-ended cable.
And that is not as horrible as iPhone shipping with a USB-A to Lightning cable? You complain that with the new MBPs (& the MB) people would need to buy a USB-C to Lightning cable. But you don't complain that Nexus buyers that don't have a computer with USB-C ports, which is the vast majority of PCs in circulations, have to buy a USB-A to USB-C cable?
 

bladerunner2000

Suspended
Jun 12, 2015
2,511
10,478
No, because of this:
1495517971860408492.jpg

A common trick for adding 128-256 GiB of cheap, sleek, expandable storage with no real downside. This is how I have local Time Machine backups on the go, plus my big files go in there. But even if you didn't do this, SD card readers tend to be rather clunky.

What laptop is that??
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.