Satechi Launches New USB-C Clamp Hub for M1 iMac

[PinkyMacGodess]

Reiterating my issue:
I have 4 USB C devices and 2 of the most "advanced" won't use each other's chargers. (Switch and MBP)

The two that will share chargers will only charge with a USB A to USB C cable.

My devices that charge with USB A to micro, mini or lightning work on every single device, no exceptions.

Sounds like the Cisco equipment I had 6 or 7 years ago. I had a charger brick that looked exactly like the Cisco brick, so only bought one for 2 APs.

Yeah the one that had the 'non-Cisco' brick bitched holy hell in the logs because it wasn't an 'Original Cisco brick'. Like every minute or so! The logs were FILLED with whining about that brick.

So, we are getting to the point where we have a connector that will be 'universal', but an industry that won't allow you to use anyone else's power bricks. And they probably called if 'progress'...

 

[dgrey]

USB-C is a newer technology that costs next to nothing to buy dedicated cables again.

Yeah sure. Buy new cables and throw away your old ones. Who cares? It’s cheap for your wallet (expensive for the environment)!

 

[Maconplasma]

Yeah sure. Buy new cables and throw away your old ones. Who cares? It’s cheap for your wallet (expensive for the environment)!

Oh please cut the "expensive for the environment" nonsense. It's just a way for you to take a dig at Apple. Every company comes out with a new designed port for their products and legacy customers have to upgrade to the new standards or stay in the past. Cameras are the biggest change. New card slots such as XQD, C-Fast, CFE. So what's a customer to do who's used to using SD and needs a new professional camera? They upgrade to the new card storage medium which is very expensive and they will have to toss out their old SD cards if their older camera is no longer useful for their required needs.
USB-C cables cost $5-$10 for most plugs. Your complaint is nonsensical.

 

[dgrey]

Oh please cut the "expensive for the environment" nonsense. It's just a way for you to take a dig at Apple. Every company comes out with a new designed port for their products and legacy customers have to upgrade to the new standards or stay in the past. Cameras are the biggest change. New card slots such as XQD, C-Fast, CFE. So what's a customer to do who's used to using SD and needs a new professional camera? They upgrade to the new card storage medium which is very expensive and they will have to toss out their old SD cards if their older camera is no longer useful for their required needs.
USB-C cables cost $5-$10 for most plugs. Your complaint is nonsensical.

No, it’s not nonsensical at all. Not even close. It IS bad for the environment. And this isn’t exclusive to Apple.

P.S. And anyone who ”throws out a camera” should be shot. A lot of people still have and use 35mm film cameras (myself included). A lot of people still have turntables and buy music (and prefer) Vinyl LP’s (Moi, enocore). You don’t just “throw away” stuff like that. But, you obviously don’t care about the environment. Just want to cream over the latest tech gadget.

 

[Maconplasma]

No, it’s not nonsensical at all. Not even close. It IS bad for the environment. And this isn’t exclusive to Apple.

P.S. And anyone who ”throws out a camera” should be shot. A lot of people still have and use 35mm film cameras (myself included). A lot of people still have turntables and buy music (and prefer) Vinyl LP’s (Moi, enocore). You don’t just “throw away” stuff like that. But, you obviously don’t care about the environment. Just want to cream over the latest tech gadget.

I didn't say any of the sort. I SAID if a person's older camera is no longer useful for their REQUIRED NEEDS then they will have to "toss out" their older SD cards if their new camera (that DOES fulfill their needs) uses different storage medium. I didn't say a thing about throwing out a camera. You did reply to my post about upgrading cables for newer computer technologies did you not? It applies the same way. The older computer can be still used with the older cables. Just the same with older camera being used with the older storage medium.

And if you're so worried about the environment then don't buy anymore electronics. You're blaming Apple over some cables when big flat screens are being tossed out for new TV's and stereo equipment along with computers are also being tossed. You're making a mountain out of a molehill. And don't tell me what I don't care about. You know nothing about me. Don't get personal.

 

[robotica]

I think money is better spent on a full fat thunderbolt dock. I am surprised apple has not come out with one. Seems like an idea value addon for them to sell.

 

[macsound1]

Oh please cut the "expensive for the environment" nonsense. It's just a way for you to take a dig at Apple. Every company comes out with a new designed port for their products and legacy customers have to upgrade to the new standards or stay in the past. Cameras are the biggest change. New card slots such as XQD, C-Fast, CFE. So what's a customer to do who's used to using SD and needs a new professional camera? They upgrade to the new card storage medium which is very expensive and they will have to toss out their old SD cards if their older camera is no longer useful for their required needs.
USB-C cables cost $5-$10 for most plugs. Your complaint is nonsensical.

The argument about digital cameras and newer storage cards is a good one.
Newer cameras take higher resolution images and require cards that are faster to write and have more storage.
I have no issue throwing out a 8GB Class 4 SD card and replacing it with a UHS-II 128GB card because it has allowed me to use the product better.

But USB C doesn't do that. It isn't faster, it doesn't "do" more. It's just a different shape to do the same thing, just not as well, or at least, not as transparently.

If USB C didn't include thunderbolt and power and always meant USB4, it would be an improved USB 3.
But because USB C gets muddled with additional protocols and features, you can't be sure what will happen when you plug a device in. Will it charge? Will it transfer data? Will it output video? How do I know if this cable is rated for 100w or Thunderbolt or even USB 3?

If the tech world was run by a single company who had straightforward ideas and no bureaucratic mess, that single company could make a universal cable.

 

[Maconplasma]

The argument about digital cameras and newer storage cards is a good one.
Newer cameras take higher resolution images and require cards that are faster to write and have more storage.
I have no issue throwing out a 8GB Class 4 SD card and replacing it with a UHS-II 128GB card because it has allowed me to use the product better.

But USB C doesn't do that. It isn't faster, it doesn't "do" more. It's just a different shape to do the same thing, just not as well, or at least, not as transparently.

Apple doesn't just use "USB-C", their ports are TB3/TB4 and they ARE MUCH FASTER.

If USB C didn't include thunderbolt and power and always meant USB4, it would be an improved USB 3.

But it does so your earlier argument is invalid.

But because USB C gets muddled with additional protocols and features, you can't be sure what will happen when you plug a device in.

I am always certain because I know what I'm plugging into my Macs.

Will it charge?

That should be a given if you know the product you're plugging into your Mac.

Will it transfer data?

If it's a device that doesn't transfer data (like my USB-C microphone) then it should be obvious.

Will it output video?

My USB-C mic and external storage drives certainly don't output video. SMH.

How do I know if this cable is rated for 100w or Thunderbolt or even USB 3?

The people that care about that KNOW how to measure that stuff. This forum is filled with talented people which are the only ones who do care about that. But nice try at trying to downplay the technology with farfetched examples. 😂

 

[macsound1]

If you're talking about USB C being a standard, it applies to many other products that aren't made by Apple.

Apple doesn't just use "USB-C", their ports are TB3/TB4 and they ARE MUCH FASTER.

The newest iMac has 2 USB C ports that are not thunderbolt.
Also the USB C cable that comes with MBPs to charge only supports data speeds of 480Mbps.

 

[Maconplasma]

The newest iMac has 2 USB C ports that are not thunderbolt.

Really? Then I guess Apple must be lying because that's not what they state for the base model. So you're right and Apple is wrong?

Also the USB C cable that comes with MBPs to charge only supports data speeds of 480Mbps.

It's for charging. Pointless thing to say. But for connecting other devices for fast transfer you can buy cables for well under $10.

 

[chucker23n1]

Apple doesn't just use "USB-C", their ports are TB3/TB4 and they ARE MUCH FASTER.

I thought this was about digital cameras. How many digital cameras use Thunderbolt?

 

[Maconplasma]

I thought this was about digital cameras. How many digital cameras use Thunderbolt?

I can't reiterate enough how your post has zero to do with anything I stated.

 

[macsound1]

Really? Then I guess Apple must be lying because that's not what they state for the base model. So you're right and Apple is wrong?

It's for charging. Pointless thing to say. But for connecting other devices for fast transfer you can buy cables for well under $10.

Not the base model. It has 2 ports total. The step up model has 4 ports, two of which are not thunderbolt.

The reason a cable with a connector means something is the exact reason why it's frustrating that all cables that look alike cannot be used interchangeably, which is exactly why USB C is not a standard.

2 USB C cables that look exactly alike have different feature sets unknown to the end user unless they still have the packaging.

Equally so - 2 USB C ports that look exactly alike have different feature sets unknown to the user unless they do research or the ports are labeled in some way.

But why would a standard operate so differently from device to device unless perhaps it isn't a standard.
Do you own any Firewire 800 cables that only operate at 400Mbps? Or Cat 5 cables that are incapable of making a proper network connection?

When designing something to be interchangeable, just the port fitting isn't the only interchangeable part. If the interchangeability relies on an underlying data connection, but there are cables that don't support that type or flavor of data, then why use the same connector?

Even USB A did a great job at this. USB 3 connectors are usually blue on the inside. If they're not, I don't expect them to operate at USB 3 speeds.

Couldn't USB C have made a similar convention or are we destined to have arguments forever about consumers being responsible for sorting and labeling their USB C cables and devices for the actual protocols they support.

 

[Maconplasma]

Not the base model. It has 2 ports total. The step up model has 4 ports, two of which are not thunderbolt.
View attachment 1822331

That's not what you stated at all in your earlier post. The other two are USB 3 ports. So? Your point? Every desktop computer has multiple ports. The iMac in general still has two TB3 ports so your point is invalid. And please move on to another member. This discussion between us is going nowhere. I'm done with it. You're looking for some reason to slam Apple by cherrypicking nonsensical stuff. If you don't like their stuff then don't buy but I don't have time for cherrypicked points.

 

[chucker23n1]

I can't reiterate enough how your post has zero to do with anything I stated.

Sure. That, or you think connecting a device to TB magically makes it faster.

 

[Lemon Olive]

Is it like when CD's first came out? They were 100% digital! Oh, people were enthralled by the technology. 'OMG! These are going to be SO GOOD!!! They will ROCK OUR WORLDS!!! The fidelity, the ability to reproduce music with such detail, such precision, life is going to be so amazing!!!'

And people realize that the majority of the music they were listening to was 'AAD'. Analog recorded, Analog mastered. All that capability was WASTED because of the cheap record labels, and for some music, it took years, many years, to get 'true' digital music on the mighty CD.

Isn't USB-C supposed tp be faster? How many devices that have USB-C pots even use that speed. I have a wireless speaker that uses the USB-C port for , um, charging... I would doubt that it even uses the whole charging capability of USB-C.

*shrug*

USB-C is great. But USB-A is and was too big. It can't just be replaced by something that does the same thing but is technically better.

 

[sracer]

This is such a good idea.

So annoying having to change cables at the back when your Mac faces a wall.

This is exhibit A in the claim that Apple engages in "form over function". It's my biggest and only gripe about my iMacs.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

USB-C is great. But USB-A is and was too big. It can't just be replaced by something that does the same thing but is technically better.

But yes it can. I always wondered were those funky invertable (my word) USB-A ports are. I heard someone had come up with a USB-A port that had a moveable tongue inside it that would flip depending on what way a cable was plugged in. I have never, to my knowledge anyway, ever experienced one. It would seem to be an invitation for the tongue to break rendering the whole thing useless. USB-C seems to 'fix' that issue, but I'm waiting to see if it has the burned connector contact issue like Lightning does.

I have tossed so many cables over the years that have the contacts completely burned out, literal HOLES left where they were. Maybe they should have staggered the contacts to help deal with that problem? One cable toasted within days of owning it. So disappointing.

And that other weird (Micro-USB?) port can be a mess too. I had a device where the danged port was so cheesy, I ended up being able to inadvertantly insert the plug upside down, and destroyed their port. It still worked, but was so gorked, cables didn't stay in, and anything could be plugged in any which way. I think the center tongue finally just broke off and some of the pins shorted. Bad design, bad implementation, just plain bad...

 

[chucker23n1]

But yes it can. I always wondered were those funky invertable (my word) USB-A ports are. I heard someone had come up with a USB-A port that had a moveable tongue inside it that would flip depending on what way a cable was plugged in. I have never, to my knowledge anyway, ever experienced one.

Reversible USB-A plugs exist, but they're non-standard and therefore somewhat unsafe.

 

[chucker23n1]

This is exhibit A in the claim that Apple engages in "form over function". It's my biggest and only gripe about my iMacs.

But arguably, this is the best of both worlds: those who are fine with just the ports to the back get the iMac, and those who want a few to the front get this hub.

Me, I think I would ultimately prefer just a regular dock sitting on the desk, rather than hanging somewhere, because as soon as it hangs, that means so too do the cables, and that looks messy no matter what. It's fine in the promo shot because they're only connecting an SD card and two thumb drives, but if you were to actually plug in a cable (and leave it plugged in), the Satechi hub would look quite odd.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

Reversible USB-A plugs exist, but they're non-standard and therefore somewhat unsafe.

I figured that was the case. Anything that requires some small thin piece of plastic to flop back and forth under some amount of force really is a fools errand. *SNAP* and everything goes drastically sideways. Oops...

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

But arguably, this is the best of both worlds: those who are fine with just the ports to the back get the iMac, and those who want a few to the front get this hub.

Me, I think I would ultimately prefer just a regular dock sitting on the desk, rather than hanging somewhere, because as soon as it hangs, that means so too do the cables, and that looks messy no matter what. It's fine in the promo shot because they're only connecting an SD card and two thumb drives, but if you were to actually plug in a cable (and leave it plugged in), the Satechi hub would look quite odd.

I can't FIND my hub. The other day, I was pulling on cables and found out that two of them weren't plugged into the hub. Finally I got a cable that extracted the hub from the depths. (Yeah, I have to clean off my desk. Eventually)

 

[chucker23n1]

I can't FIND my hub. The other day, I was pulling on cables and found out that two of them weren't plugged into the hub. Finally I got a cable that extracted the hub from the depths. (Yeah, I have to clean off my desk. Eventually)

Well, I'm rocking the laptop lifestyle, so it's not quite the same, but I have a USB hub on one desk with just the basic devices (Magic Trackpad, keyboard, mic, display*), and a Thunderbolt dock at the more luxurious desk with all that plus Ethernet, another display*, and a few charging cables. And I suppose if this MacBook Pro were more recent, I could even charge that way.

*) technically, one of the displays is connected directly through HDMI. It's not clear to me if Thunderbolt 3 and/or USB-C makes two displays through one cable feasible.

It's nice having to connect few things, and to have those cables tucked away somewhere. Despite that, the dock also has a few front ports where I need them. Not as clean as Apple would want it, but occasionally quite useful, it turns out.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

Well, I'm rocking the laptop lifestyle, so it's not quite the same, but I have a USB hub on one desk with just the basic devices (Magic Trackpad, keyboard, mic, display*), and a Thunderbolt dock at the more luxurious desk with all that plus Ethernet, another display*, and a few charging cables. And I suppose if this MacBook Pro were more recent, I could even charge that way.

*) technically, one of the displays is connected directly through HDMI. It's not clear to me if Thunderbolt 3 and/or USB-C makes two displays through one cable feasible.

It's nice having to connect few things, and to have those cables tucked away somewhere. Despite that, the dock also has a few front ports where I need them. Not as clean as Apple would want it, but occasionally quite useful, it turns out.

You sound way more organized than I pretend to be.

I have a 'muti-function' hub, with HDMI, and still am out of ports. I put all the 'important stuff' on the planer ports, and even with 'a bunch' of other ports on the hub, I seem to have to unplug things to plug others in. I probably could fill up 8 USB-C ports, and another 4 (at least) USB-A ports, plus that HDMI port, and this hub has a gigabit port too. It seems like it should be enough, and yet it's not, so I do spend at least a few seconds a day wondering if there is something that I shouldn't have plugged in that is wasting' a port.

The iMac really needs MORE PORTS! Double the ports would be a good starter. Trile would be even better.

After Big Sur update, when macOS freaked out about the hub, I got a very dim view of using hubs on the iMac. I NEED that damn thing because Apple doesn't think people that 'think different' should ever need more. *WHAT???* Some PC's have over a dozen USB-A ports! Some have 2 or even 3 ethernet ports, not to mention DisplayPort ports.

Hmm...

We wouldn't need hubs of Apple gifted us with a company that thought real users could need more ports. (Making the internal storage non-upgradable just adds to the total degree of nastiness Apple plays on their users. (IMO)

We NEED MORE PORTS!!! (And I have an IMP that already has more ports!)

 

[macsound1]

To continue down the path that USB-C is confusing - I just got an email that Monoprice is having a sale on USB 2 USB-C cables.
There's no visual way to know that the drawer of cables you have isn't even capable of USB 3, a speed increase to the "standard" in 2008, created even before the USB-C connector was invented!