Does USB Type C Herald the End of Apple's Proprietary Connectors? 392
An anonymous reader writes The Verge has an interesting editorial about the USB Type C connector on the new Macbook, and what this might mean for Apple's Lightning and Thunderbolt connectors. The former is functionally identical to USB Type C, and the latter has yet to prove popular in the external media and "docking" applications for which it was originally intended. Will Apple phase out these ports in favour of a single, widely-accepted, but novel standard? Or do we face a dystopian future where Apple sells cords with USB Type C on one end, and Lightning on the other?
Thunderbolt (Score:5, Informative)
Thunderbolt is not a proprietary connector to Apple. It is a standard that Intel has made available and i've seen non-Apple computers with Thunderbolt.
In contrast to DockPort (Score:5, Interesting)
Still, you can contrast with DockPort [wikipedia.org], which is a *VESA* standard.
Like Thunderbolt, it does enable an additional flux of data for peripherals and docks, but unlike ThunderBolt, it uses USB3.0 instead of PCIe for the peripherals.
(Also meaning that it will be more easy to use with portable devices, which tend to already have USB support built-in, but not necessarily a PCIe bus).
Also DockPort introduce high power availability for charging portable devices (again an advantage for portable device).
Now with TFA's anouncement, that means that even further does the two grow closer.
You can imagin USB-C to DisplayPort cable for portable devices using this (just like MHL standart enabled using micro-USB to HDMI cables).
Except that it also delivers power to charge the device (and doesn't rely on a 3rd different protocol like MHL).
Re:In contrast to DockPort (Score:5, Interesting)
For some reason, your post implies you think Thunderbolt does not supply power to its devices. This is simply not true.
Even if the specification did not provide power in and of itself, its use of the PCI-E bus does require it to provide power over its lanes. In fact, one of the advantages of Thunderbolt when it first came out was providing twice as much power as the fastest USB at the time. Thunderbolt 2 provide at least double that amount of power when it was released.
Thunderbolt is not a standard like Dockport, which requires you to use a display port to USB adapter to access USB devices, as it was never inteded for strictly that purpose. Thunderbolt was created to bypass the need for the USB middle man, and provide direct access to the PCI-E bus for devices that could benefit from it, such as arrays of disks, analog video feeds, and other prosumer/business logic.
A big thing USB 3.1 is touting is the ability to tie two SSDs together in a RAID 0 configuration and not max out its bandwidth. But it will at three SSDs. Thunderbolt could already handle 3 of these in its first spec, and can handle more in the 2.0 version. Not to mention 3.0 which is still in the works.
That is what Thunderbolt is intended for.
Re:In contrast to DockPort (Score:5, Informative)
Even if the specification did not provide power in and of itself, its use of the PCI-E bus does require it to provide power over its lanes. In fact, one of the advantages of Thunderbolt when it first came out was providing twice as much power as the fastest USB at the time. Thunderbolt 2 provide at least double that amount of power when it was released.
Thunderbolt's spec most certainly does account for power. It has a pin specifically for power, and is rated for 550mA at 18V, or around 10W. Both Thunderbolt 1 and 2 offer the same amount of power, since all thunderbolt 2 did was add channel aggregation to let one device use both channels.
For its part, USB 3.1 offers 15W of power by default, going up to 100W of power with optional specs. Thunderbolt 3 also offers 100W of power, but it may be dead on arrival considering that USB-C is more likely to hit mass adoption, and TB3 uses a new connector that is not backwards compatible without adapters.
A big thing USB 3.1 is touting is the ability to tie two SSDs together in a RAID 0 configuration and not max out its bandwidth.
Nobody is touting that. SSDs in RAID is going to be a niche use at best. Most people are going to be connecting simple flash drives, and very few of those come close to even maxing out USB 3.
Re: (Score:3)
A big thing USB 3.1 is touting is the ability to tie two SSDs together in a RAID 0 configuration and not max out its bandwidth.
Nobody is touting that. SSDs in RAID is going to be a niche use at best. Most people are going to be connecting simple flash drives, and very few of those come close to even maxing out USB 3.
USB 2.0 is 15 years old, yet widely popular, and mostly adequate. Compared to 20 year old USB 1.1 which is painful for anything other than keyboards and mice. Having lots of extra bandwidth for future use isn't a bad thing. See also how new SSDs can saturate SATA 3, yet 10 years ago a hard drive struggled to keep up with the ATA-133 bus.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure that I get your point. Very few people are using external SSDs. Practically nil outside of enterprise and professionals. Such rare use cases are certainly not driving the marketing or design of USB 3.1.
Re: (Score:3)
Still, you can contrast with DockPort [wikipedia.org], which is a *VESA* standard.
It's 1 year old and used by nobody. Wooot for VESA! Fuck yeah, who wouldn't want a standard like that? Heck, for fun I searched on Amazon: the only thing you can buy there are controller chips.
Is this another "Apple needs to use this standard (because else nobody will)" post?
Re:Thunderbolt (Score:5, Funny)
Shut up! We're trying to bash Apple here!
ok, then (Score:5, Insightful)
As I understand it presently, there's no ethernet on USB-C. That's really disappointing. I have applications that require the higher dependability of ethernet as opposed to wifi. And the whole USB to Ethernet dongle thing... that tends to not work so well, at least thus far. There's also the additional security of not being OTA, where anyone in range can intercept your packets.
I'm all for as wireless as possible -- charging, etc. -- but I really don't think it's a good idea to remove the hardwired network connection. Particularly in that ethernet is so well supported across the board.
there's a dongle for that. (Score:5, Insightful)
there's a dongle for anything really. Apple just deprecates things slightly ahead of people realzing they soon won't need that. I recall when apple dropped the modem socket. I figured I needed that for sure and bought a modem dongle but then found I never used it. Ethernet had become easy to find then next time I traveled. When they dropped the ethernet socket, I bought an ethernet dongle. I used it about 10 times in many years. Wifi is just ubiquitous. Even when it's not around tethering to my phone was easier than reaching in the bag for the dongle and then finding a chair near an availble ethernet port. When they dropped the DVD I thought I'd miss it but oddly about the same time I stopped burning DVDs and started using thumb drives and DropBox only. The same was true when apple dropped parallel ports and then Floppies.
So apple will make dongles to bridge the momentary time you need to bridge with legacy devices, then you will find everything new you buy is wireless. It's interesting the headphone jack is still there since bluetooth chips are so cheap, easy to use, and are smaller than the headphone jack itself. I guess the problem for wireless headphones is powering them requires too many batteries.
Re: (Score:3)
It's interesting the headphone jack is still there since bluetooth chips are so cheap, easy to use, and are smaller than the headphone jack itself. I guess the problem for wireless headphones is powering them requires too many batteries.
Current Bluetooth headsets require the audio stream to be compressed using lossy compression. If you want the best audio quality, you buy nice headphones and plug them into the analog jack.
According to a post on soundexpert.org [soundexpert.org], Bluetooth audio has 721 kbps bandwidth. That
Losing the MagSafe charging connector? Arrrrrgh (Score:5, Insightful)
That is a severely regressive design move.
This computer should have retained magsafe for charging then had one of these USB-C things for, you know, port stuff.
My current MBP would have been knocked from table/chair to floor ten times now if not for magsafe. What the hell were they thinking?
I can only hope the next ultralight MB Pro retains magsafe and a couple of ports.
Re:Thunderbolt (Score:5, Interesting)
I have 2 generic servers in my closet that use Thunderbolt to talk to big ass arrays of disks. Nothing Apple related about them.
And USB 3 does not do everything I use Thunderbolt for on my Mac, including ferry USB3 over the same wire as video. I come home (or go to the office) and plug in my laptop with single cable and instantly my displays, USB3 devices, audio and networking all work ... without eating a ridiculous amount of CPU power as required by USB.
Dear god, do not drop Thunderbolt support based on the silly musings of a bunch of people buying the cheapest crap hardware they can possibly buy and then being pissy they don't have the same functionality. Fortunately Apple doesn't generally listen to a bunch of whiners on slashdot.
Re:Thunderbolt (Score:5, Informative)
Thunderbolt has several advantages over DockPort.
First, it's effectively PCIe - that should already start brewing ideas. Instead of crappy USB-to-serial adapters or parallel adapters that barely work, a Thunderbolt variant would work just like a real connector on your PC (and is practically driverless).
Thunderbolt also has the uncanny ability to hook up huge daisy chains of drives without losing too much speed between the first and last drive - most of the loss in speed comes from having more devices on the line than the actual order of them. If you want to deal with big ass external arrays, Thunderbolt makes that all the more convenient.
Heck, USB generally sucks for storage until you find a matching pair of UAS (USB Attached SCSI) host controllers and drives (which are $$$).
Re:Thunderbolt (Score:5, Interesting)
Even something like Apple putting out a cheap external expansion bay might help there since that opens up a whole host of 3rd party hardware right there.
Re:Thunderbolt (Score:5, Informative)
Thunderbolt is never going to be popular. Intel charges almost $50 per port. USB on the other hand can be had for pennies.
Re: (Score:2)
First, it's effectively PCIe - that should already start brewing ideas
Yes. Very cool malicious / malware ideas.
Someone steals your powered on but locked laptop, and just dumps the memory and disk contents by plugging in a cable.
You go to company-X to or a conference to make a presentation, plug into their (modified) projector, and it quietly steals all your data, email, etc... a little fun industrial espionage.
Or maybe it just quietly installs some trojan software so they can look at your laptop later...
Physical security (Score:3)
Friend, if you let people get close enough to your hardware to muck with your thunderbolt connector, you didn't have any security anyway.
Restriction of physical access is an absolute first-level requirement for any kind of data / hardware security. Without it, you have nothing. And they have anything they want. There are no exceptions. Absolutely perfect, hardware-based Fingerprint lock? Just open the computer -- with a torch or diamond saw if required -- and walk away with the drives; read and/or decode 'e
Re: (Score:2)
If you look at benchmarks for most purposes USB 3.0 connected drives perform as well as Thunderbolt connected ones. Outside of server applications the advantages of USB/Dockport far outweigh the few percent more performance, and the huge security risk of having a Thunderbolt port on your laptop.
History Repeats itself (Score:5, Insightful)
While all this is true, back in the day we heard the same sorts of arguments about Firewire being awesome for disk arrays, daisy chaining and video camcorders, and it never really gained any traction against USB, and instead flickered out. USB will no doubt just create a v4 standard to address shortcomings *just enough* to keep the protests at bay, and then with its wide install base and cheaper cost will no doubt trounce thunderbolt, and Apple will eventually drop it just like firewire.
History always repeats itself when it comes to connectors in the consumer space, because most consumers don't see enough benefit in their use cases to justify the high cost. Most are not running big arrays of disks in their closets. As a result, the cheap, widespread technology wins, not necessarily the most feature rich technology. Thunderbolt's best hope is that it can continue to live on in the enterprise space somewhere and not die completely.
They do, however, eventually listen to the market. Where are the firewire ports on your Apple?
Re: (Score:3)
I have 2 generic servers in my closet that use Thunderbolt to talk to big ass arrays of disks. Nothing Apple related about them.
FYI, on OS X 10.9, if you hook up a Thunderbolt disk array built using the appropriate adapter, the OS supports AHCI 1.30 with FIS in the port multiplier and you get good throughput. Hook up the same array to a Mac running OS X 10.10, and it reports that the port multiplier only supports AHCI 1.20, and does not support FIS, and your throughput goes to hell.
So it seems to me that Apple is at least partly responsible for lack of adoption. Right now, on the current OS, a more expensive and more capable Thunder
Re: (Score:2)
You should update your infos.
It's actually a feature of USB3.1 and that's what the new MacBook does. It has a single USB C connector on it, nothing else (apart from an audio jack), and it's used for charging, video out, peripherials, whatever.
That was a problem of USB2.0.
Re: (Score:2)
USB doesn't "[eat] a ridiculous amount of CPU power", especially USB 3. It's mostly handed off to hardware, including DMA into memory just like Thunderbolt. There might be some early, crappy USB 3 chipsets with bad drivers, but the modern ones do almost everything in hardware and are designed for high throughput at low CPU load.
So just like Thunderbolt you can plug in a single USB hub and have everything connected - monitors, networking, flash drives etc. That's what Apple are doing now. You can also charge
Re:Thunderbolt (Score:5, Informative)
And USB 3 does not do everything I use Thunderbolt for on my Mac, including ferry USB3 over the same wire as video.
USB-C is in fact USB 3.1, and it very much does ferry USB and video over the same wire. VESA has standardized DisplayPort over USB-C. VESA's press release can be found here: http://www.vesa.org/news/vesa-... [vesa.org] or AnandTech had a good article here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/... [anandtech.com]
and plug in my laptop with single cable and instantly my displays, USB3 devices, audio and networking all work ...
USB 3.1 has the same bandwidth as Thunderbolt 1 (10Gbps), there's no reason why a USB-C dock couldn't do all that, and be much cheaper than a Thunderbolt dock in the process.
USB-C also supports far more power delivery than Thunderbolt. Normal devices get up to 15W (Thunderbolt does ~10W), or devices can draw up to 100W if they implement v2 of the power delivery spec.
Re:Thunderbolt (Score:5, Informative)
USB 3.1's alt mode does not encapsulate anything, nor does it use USB signalling. It dynamically gives one, two, or four of the high-speed lanes over to the alternate protocol, letting that protocol use it's own signalling. As such, a USB-C connector and cable can support full-bandwidth DisplayPort 1.3, with all features, while still carrying USB power and USB 2.0 (since those are always reserved). In practice, you're unlikely to need more than two lanes, because that's enough to deliver 4K at 60Hz, and you still get half of the USB 3.1 bandwidth (plus USB 2 and power).
USB was no longer standard either (Score:3)
mini USB ports became a shambles when all the new devices started breaking the specs to charge higher power devices. I din't follow this closely but it seems there are ways a USB device can can communicate that it would accept higher then default power levels. But in my experience this is totally broken. High power chargers from one manufactuer don't work with others. IN some cases the higher power devices just won't charge. When I plug my iphone into my car it constantly resets as it tries to draw t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Other way around.
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't Thunderbolt related to mini-Displayport?
they use the same port geometry http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/co... [cnet.com]
Depends where's the money (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not just (or directly) about the money. Patents on the chip in Lightning connectors allow Apple control over the ecosystem of products that can connect to the iPhone/iPad devices.
If there is one thing that Jobs and Ive have demonstrated they care about even more than upfront cash, it is intellectual control over what users can do with the products they deliver.
Re:Depends where's the money (Score:5, Insightful)
They would do whatever makes them more money, is there any doubt about that?
No, because all publicly-traded corporations do that.
Re:Depends where's the money (Score:5, Informative)
Thunderbolt == PCI-E (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know who the hell thinks it's a good idea to extend the PCI-E connection to the outside and to allow sticking any untrusted device into that. At least with "classic" USB the operating system has a fighting chance to fend off malware coming in through that (OK, some OSes don't even try). But with PCI-E? No chance.
I have no idea whether USB-C inherits this brain damage or not.
Re:Thunderbolt == PCI-E (Score:4, Insightful)
With classic USB? You mean the classic USB which has DMA and is open to all the same security risks as Thunderbolt and Firewire, and a proof of concept exploit has been shown where a USB stick silently acts as a keyboard and starts firing commands into a terminal, or a USB attached mobile phone becomes a malicious network card that modifies data in transit.
You should already be treating USB as untrusted.
Could be. (Score:5, Interesting)
Since Steve Jobs came back Apple has only introduced proprietary connectors when there was a really good reason for them to do so. Lightning was introduced because Micro USB was considered sub-par by Apple. And let's face it: There is some truth to that. Lightning is sturdier, easyer to handle, has more data throughput and IIRC more relyable electrical specs. Say about Apple what you want, but unlike quite a few other tech companies they actually know what they are doing and why and they don't short-change hardware design decisions. Their market evaluation seems to prove them right.
In a nutshell: If Apple decides that USB C is worthwhile and offers upsides vis-a-vis lightning, it could be that this actually is the case, and Lightning actually is on the way out.
As for Thunderbolt: Unlike what quite a few tech experts think, it is *not* an Apple specific spec, but a standardised port. It's only that Apple likes to use it more than any other vendor.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Could be. (Score:4, Funny)
Other than the fact that it's proprietary, I do like the Lightning connectors. Especially compared to those damn 4 dimensional USB connectors: try to plug it in, fail, reverse, fail *again*, reverse once more, *then* it will go in.
Well, if they're 4 dimensional, that makes sense. 3 space dimensions, and 1 time dimension. You didn't plug it in at the right time, initially, and had to wait 6.43 seconds to get it into the right spot in time to make it work. :-/
Re: (Score:3)
Most USB connectors have auto-reverse. It only works properly if you don't manually reverse at the same time.
Re: (Score:3)
You can consider USB ports to be a spin-1/2 device - it takes 2 complete rotations for a USB connector to return to its original state. So you try it once, fail, flip it over, try it again, fail, flip it over. Note that even though you did a 360 rotation of the connector, the connector's not in the same state it was 360 degrees ago - it's still only part way
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sceptical that Lightning is more robust than Micro USB, but even if it is that still misses the most important point. Micro USB is designed so that the cable will fail long before the socket on the device does. The cable can be easily replaced at very low cost. Lightning cables are expensive... Okay, you can get copies, but every now and then Apple releases a software update that breaks them.
The other big problem with Lightning is the low bandwidth. It can't do uncompressed 1080p video, for example. The
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Could be. (Score:5, Interesting)
With the greatest of respect, I would like to point out that the word "English" in your sig should be capitalised, as should the word "German", both being derived from proper nouns. Have a great day!
Re: (Score:3)
Which is especially humorous as German capitalizes nouns regardless of proper or not. Only pronouns are not normally capitalized (except formal you/Sie of course).
Re: (Score:2)
ightning was introduced because Micro USB was considered sub-par by Apple. And let's face it: There is some truth to that. Lightning is sturdier, easyer to handle, has more data throughput and IIRC more relyable electrical specs.
Easier to plug in? Yes, Apple perfected that with Lightning. Easier to break? Yep they did that too http://9to5mac.com/2014/08/22/... [9to5mac.com] And faster? Perhaps faster at delivering hype and vapor, because last I checked every Lightning cable made had a USB1/2 A port on the other end, so it's exactly as "fast" as every micro-USB cable out there.
Innovation vs. Commodity (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple has never been a commodity computer company. Herd mentality always seems to head in the direction of the cheapest tech out there even though there are far superior offerings out there. Just look at how VHS won out over Beta. That's video tape for those of you too young to know or care how we got where we are.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple has pursued sales in any market that they thought they could get into. When they've found the market wanting, they've dropped the product. Sometimes they come back around and pick up that market again later (ie, the Newton vs the iPod/iPhone) and other times they drop it entirely and don't look back (like the Xserve).
Re: (Score:2)
Your statement relies on the unspoken assumption that Apple actually innovates. They don't seem to be doing much of that lately; more often their modus operandi is to treat customers and business partners with contempt, litigate against any company seen as competition, and overcharge for, well, virtually everything.
Apple doesn't want to but may have to (Score:2)
Lightning, while a very good physical design for a connector will likely fall soon as the power benefits of USB-C are too good to pass up and iPad/Macbook Airs without it are going to seem antiquated when every other tablet and ultrabook will be sharing a u
It will be interesting to watch (Score:2)
Lightning, while a very good physical design for a connector will likely fall soon as the power benefits of USB-C are too good to pass up
You might be right but it's not immediately clear to me how much this would matter for iPhones and iPads. I haven't gotten my hands on a USB-C yet but I'm not optimistic about it working physically as well as Lightning connectors though I'd be fine with being proven wrong. Lighting is a very nice physical connector but the main reason it exists is because the connectors for USB sucks so badly. Maybe USB-C will fix this but I'm not holding my breath.
For laptops Apple has their Magsafe connector which USB-
USB C still inherently fragile (Score:5, Interesting)
USB C still has that ridiculous plastic tab inside the female port that can break quite easily if you trip on the cable. Plus in a pocket it can fill with lint and prevent the cable from seating securely.
Thankfully USB C is reversible (finally!) but compared to the proprietary Apple connector, it still is inferior in my opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, my iPhone was having intermittent charging issues and I found that I needed to pull quite a bit of lint out of the lightning port. I was able to carefully shovel it out with a pin pretty easily but it might be harder on the USB-C with the tab in there.
Re: (Score:3)
- Apple has some degree of patents on Lightning, the USB-IF likely wanted to just avoid that altogether
- Lightning connectors I've read had some issues with corrosion with their pins being exposed and this likely mitigates that by keeping the cables pins somewhat protected from fingers and such
- I believe the encapsulated design was also introduced to make the board mount socket connectors sturdier as I am likely not the only one who has had Micro-USB
Re: (Score:2)
EU rules? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
EU rules mandate microUSB. If you made a phone with a Type C port, you will still need to ship an adapter to comply.
Dongle Insanity (Score:2, Insightful)
No, it heralds the beginning of another cycle of replacing various dongles and endless cables, much like what will happen when USB-C is eventually replaced with a standard that can accommodate 5K or 8K displays, more power, etc., which would generally be anticipated in about 3-4 years.
It wouldn't be that big of a deal to me, except for the fact that I need at least three sets of adapters for home, office, and weekend place, and ideally a fourth set for my travel bag. Between Ethernet, VGA, DVI, HDMI, USB,
Re: (Score:3)
The USB Type C connector was designed with future expandability in mind. I expect that it will reign for at least a decade and maybe more.
Coincidence ? (Score:2)
Coincidence ?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but look inside the devices, there are chipsets that are reencoding the data stream.
No, (Score:2, Insightful)
Doubtful 2 (Score:2)
Lightning was designed from the ground up to be a very sturdy plug supporting an iPad or an iPhone in a dock or with physical use. After checking out the drawings on usb-c it is much better than usb-micro, but it is still based on very thin metalsheet and I do not think Apple would change a superior design that they invented themselves to another that can not handle the spec.
Thunderbolt at (thunderbolt2 now) is of open to use by others using intel hw, but it is more for the pro market, or people that have b
Not likely (Score:2)
Does USB Type C Herald the End of Apple's Proprietary Connectors?
I'm gonna go out on a very short limb and go with "no" as my answer. Apple always finds a way to do something a little different and I doubt that is likely to change anytime soon.
"Functionally identical"? (Score:2)
[Lightning] is functionally identical to USB Type C
What is meant by "functionally identical"?
Lightning is 8-pin and USB Type C is 24-pin, so...
Connector life? (Score:3)
My current laptop, an ASUS ZenBook, is dying because it has a damaged power input port - the motherboard is cracked, and it is becoming increasingly unreliable. In the past year, two tablets in my household have died because the micro-USB ports which serve as their power connectors had ceased to work - presumably due to wear. And now Apple are bringing out a new laptop with just one port which is technically similar to a USB connector. How durable is it? How will it stand up to knocks and accidental falls? If that port fails, the machine is dead - and replacement of the port inevitably means soldering the motherboard, which is skilled and consequently expensive work.
The nature of a laptop which is used on the move is that it has a hard life. The Apple MagSafe connector is a brilliant design because it is not susceptible to wear and relatively invulnerable to knocks, trips and falls. I had already made up my mind that my next laptop would be a MacBook, simply because of the MagSafe connector. So I'm aghast at the decision to abandon it. It seems perverse!
Re:Connector life? (Score:4, Funny)
In the past year, two tablets in my household have died because the micro-USB ports which serve as their power connectors had ceased to work - presumably due to wear.
Yeah, I had to fix my tablet's micro-USB port twice. One of the pins had to be resoldered to the board. These micro USB connectors are way too delicate for daily use.
Not Just apple. (Score:4, Interesting)
Dell, HP,Lenovo, ASUS all are the worst for "special secret" connectors for power. In fact they are WORSE than apple as they change the damn connector from model to model. At least magsave has stayed somewhat the same for large chunks of time.
I really hope the EU adopts USB-C and forces the laptop makers all to use it for the power connection. It's utterly stupid that we have been forced to have random power plugs on laptops.
24-pin uber connector!?!?! Yuck! (Score:3)
I foresee a mess coming because of the number of pins in USB type-C.
One of the big benefits to USB was that it was only 4 wires: power, ground, and a differential pair. Years ago, we all laughed at the Apple dock connector and it's gzillion pins. USB type-C seems like a throwback, with 24-pins, and a microchip. It looks like 18 of those pins require unique wires (since the ground and power pins can be shared). So that means that where I have a 4-wire USB cable now, the replacement is an 18-wire cable. Of course, most things won't need all of the features, so most cables will probably have far fewer wires than that. They'll omit the configuration wire, the sidechannel wire, the'll make the bus power a smaller gauge, eliminate some of the unused differential pairs, etc. If that happens, you will no longer be able to use any old USB cable for anything. You'll need to know what wires each USB cable has to know what devices it works with. So they'll start labeling them with nifty names like "USB type-C Lion" which has 18 gauge bus pins, and "USB type-C Gamma Monkey" which has 18 gauge bus pins and the sidechannel pins. And they will be more expensive.
No, of course not (Score:3)
Now they need to sell you an adapter that takes the one port and makes into 2, 3 or 4 ports for $80 or more.
Re:Another failure (Score:4, Funny)
I'll take "contributing factors to Apple's single digit market share for $500 Alex."
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and they're crying all the way to the bank with the more than $160 billion they have in cash.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Another failure (Score:4, Insightful)
Something is only overpriced if no one is willing to pay the price.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what people said just before the .com crash
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on your definition of overpriced. If it's simply "what people are willing to pay," and prices are fixed forever, then you're correct. If it's "what people are willing to pay when they're well informed of their options," then it's a much tougher point to argue (either way).
If you bought a widget for $100 based on your incorrect belief in scarcity, and then you walked next door and found the exact same widget for $0.10, then you could quite correctly conclude that the first one you bought was overpr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bernie Madoff got rich too.
Re:Another failure (Score:5, Informative)
Did you forget your sarcasm tag? Since when has DisplayPort "failed"? Every single Dell monitor, for example, comes with both full-size and mini Displayport ports. Also, Thunderbolt is Intel's standard not Apple's.
Re: (Score:3)
And to add, basically every single consumer Nvidia video card I've bought and have seen been released for 5 years or so have all had Displayport ports. You have an interesting notion of "failure".
Re: (Score:3)
AMD went full-on for DisplayPort as well. The EyeFinity system uses mini DisplayPorts to give you that many ports on a 2-slot card.
My HP monitor has it and lacks an HDMI input.
Many laptops have a "DP++" connector that is a dual-function DisplayPort + HDMI depending on what you plug into it.
Not a failure in the least...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
hahaha, I did presentations at a conference this past weekend and shared the mini-DisplayPort to VGA adapter I have in my bag with lots of folks with all different hardware.
I'm using a high-spec Taiwanese laptop with Fedora and used this "failed" spec quite effectively.
The 8K display I have on my wishlist is definitely going to use _only_ DisplayPort.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, DisplayPort is basically everywhere. That's amazing success for a "failed" spec.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple adopted it completely and nobody else wanted quite literally HDMI without audio
As someone happily driving a 2560x1440 display from my Lenovo's displayport interface, I would disagree. DP has/had much higher resolution than HDMI. Recent variants go higher than 1080p, but are not all that reliably supported.
Re: (Score:2)
How dare you bring facts into Apple bashing session!
Re: (Score:3)
Dell has DisplayPort ports in basically all of their monitors as well. This guy lives in some alternate universe bubble if he thinks nobody wants or uses DisplayPort beyond Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Who the hell has monitors with audio in them?
Some people do so they don't have to have external speakers. Of course most monitor speakers are crap.
Re: (Score:2)
Who the hell has monitors with audio in them?
Well, perhaps everybody who wants to connect their laptop to a TV.
You know, to watch a video in a hotel room or stream video from the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
GP doesn't let silly things like "facts" get in the way of his spittle-filled rants.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh thank jobs you clarified that.
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Try an $80 adapter... just to get HDMI. This new laptop makes no sense. I can't think of anybody I know who doesn't use HDMI with their laptops, even if it is just as a way of piping Netflix to a hotel TV while traveling. And I can't think of anybody who doesn't use a USB port, even if it is just for charging an iPhone. So pretty much 100% of laptop users will have to own this enormously overpriced, clumsy adapter and carry it around with them at all times, just so they could make that computer slightly thinner.
Worse, most users polled would rather Apple make laptops thicker to give us better battery life, because the real-world battery life is a third what Apple claims unless you do nothing more complex than running Word and a web browser. A whole day running Xcode or Photoshop? Yeah, right. Making them even thinner and taking away ports that nearly everybody uses is exactly the opposite of what users are asking for.
Who did they design this for again? Apple managers?
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Interesting)
They designed this for the people who don't use laptops heavily and are blown away by thin/light.... in other words, most people. Putting a $150-200 Core M CPU in a $1500 laptop is just incredible... this laptop has tablet guts. And the amazing thing is that people will buy them and many that don't will lust for them.
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's Apple's real problem: the MacBook Air is a better laptop in almost every aspect.
* The MacBook Air is significantly cheaper
* The MacBook Air is significantly more powerful
* The MacBook Air has much better connectivity and usability
* The MacBook Air requires no external adapters besides power, the MacBook will likely be used with a video and/or network adapter as well
* The MacBook has a better display
* The MacBook is 15% lighter and 25% thinner, but they're practically indistinguishable compared to regular laptops, or even the MacBook Pro
Honestly, what they should have done is this:
Make a new MacBook Air using most of the MacBook's features (thinner, USB-C ports for charging/connectivity), make the better display an add-on option (to keep the MBA as the entry-level Mac option), and don't needlessly split your product line.
That's one of the few things Jobs did that I won't argue with - he streamlined the product lineup. When there were multiple computers that fit the same niche, he ditched all but one. The MacBook and MacBook Air now fit the same niche - almost exactly. There is zero reason for them to both exist.
I do like the idea of ditching legacy ports for thinness. I wouldn't need it myself, but I like the idea. But just one USB-C port, period? If it were me, I'd have four USB-C ports, a Mini-DisplayPort or Thunderbolt (or two, even), an audio port, and maybe a Micro-HDMI (since HDMI is way more common than DisplayPort, and you can convert Micro-HDMI to HDMI with a dirt-cheap passive cable). That's more than enough connectivity, but it still uses nothing that would impact your thickness. There's no need to limit it to just one USB port.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You won't need an $80 adapter just to get HDMI; there will be lots of third party cheap adapters since DisplayPort (and by extension HDMI) over USB-C are a VESA standard. But you will need that adapter if you want both HDMI and charging your laptop at the same time.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean the $80 adapter that does HDMI, USB A, and USB C "passthrough"?
Because that's all I can find, other than the one that does VGA instead of HDMI.
So it's not "just to get HDMI" -- it's either better, or worse, depending on how one spins it.
Plainly it's not a good laptop for you. And I'm awful goddamn certain that it is definitely not a good laptop for me, because I do plug all manner of random stuff into my computers on a regular basis.
But not everyone does.
Meanwhile, peripherals are sure to get chea
Re: (Score:3)
Apple exists by giving consumers what they will buy, not what they want. For example, you will never see a "Mac Pro Mini" which is what consumers want, but Apple will not sell, forcing people to buy the canister or go with a Mini or iMac, and replace it in a year or two.
This MacBook (not a MacBook Air, nor a MacBook Pro) is aimed at a definite market segment, arguably the biggest buyer of Apple's computers... college students.
It appears to be aimed at getting rid of the two MBA offerings, being a 12 inch m
Re: (Score:3)
6 USB ports? - Lets see - mouse, keyboard (sometimes), phone charge cable, external hard drive, memory stick. I guess I don't need 6 but 3 is a minimum. HDMI- ? yes for big screens in meeting rooms. VGA - not as common as HDMI for big screens, but still out there, could do without. eSATA - dont use it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)