Yesterday, Shawn posted an article about the emergence of USB-C and the growing pains associated with a new connection form factor.
That formed the center of discussion for one segment on yesterday’s Amplified podcast. Conversation turned to the problem of a computer sporting a single port used for all connections, for power, for data transfer, for video, etc.
Turns out, Shawn’s article laid all that out as well. Apple will ship a USB-C to USB-C cable, as well as a power brick that plugs into the wall with a USB-C port. Plug in the brick, then plug the USB-C cable into the brick and your computer.
But what if you need to connect an external monitor or hard drive? The port is already used up. Well, for $79, Apple has your answer, an adapter with a USB plug on one end, and three ports on the other, one USB-C (for power), one HDMI (for video), and one standard USB port (for all your existing USB accessories). They’ve also got another version with USB-C, VGA, and USB in case that’s the way you roll, as well as an adapter for USB-C to (old) standard USB.
What about Thunderbolt?
Thunderbolt isn’t dead and USB-C doesn’t look like it’s going to kill it off soon. Indeed, it seems likely that USB-C will wind up replacing ports on consumer-leaning Macs, like future MacBooks (if 12-inch isn’t the only model), Mac minis, and iMacs, while the Mac Pro and MacBook Pro will probably retain Thunderbolt for the highest performance with external drives and other peripherals.
This makes perfect sense to me. The new MacBook is light as a feather, designed for portability. So consolidating down to a single USB-C port is logical. With judicious use of WiFi, you could spend the MacBook’s entire life without need for peripherals, just the occasional sip of power.
Do you think we’ll still see Lightning on the next iPhone and iPad?
If we’re moving to USB-C, does the Apple-Watch come with a compatible cable, or is even a new device going to forever need the adapter?
Hoping they don’t also do this to the pro. If they do, I might need to go back to Windows.
I’ve got no inside knowledge, but I would think so. Excellent question, though. It’d certainly be interesting to move all devices to USB-C and allow greater peripheral connectivity.
Another excellent question. I think the Apple Watch is strictly wireless (Bluetooth?), so USB-C would not be an issue there.
USB-C is fine. A single USB-C is not. Apple’s solution of a multiplexing dongle is a classic Jobs/Ive design decision. Keep the design monolithically beautiful even if you have to turn it into a less beautiful device when you use it.
I wish they had dropped the headphone jack for bluetooth audio and added another usb-c. Doesn’t it seem strange to not push a wireless technology like bt audio?
Limitations have always been part and parcel with the MacBook.
If we were talking about a MacBook Pro these limitations would be well-founded criticisms. But we’re talking about a MacBook, historically Apple’s Consumer level portable.
so much hysteria trying to wrap every use case into a single device.
This makes sense to you? Why would Apple drop thunderbolt on the Mac mini or especially the iMac. The 5K Retina iMac is geared directly at video editors and there is no lack of space for a thunderbolt port when you have a 27-inch (or even a 21-inch) screen attached. As for the Mac mini, it is geared at replacing your existing PC while you keep your peripherals. Eliminating ports on it kinda defeats the purpose of the Mac mini.
I can see Apple developing a “Mac stick” some day that has the profile of a Chromecast and plugs into your TV. Such a device would do well to have a single USB-C port.
However, it seems USB-C is about portability and making it the sole port on an iMac or Mac mini just seems dumb.
I would guess that the Apple watch connects via lightning port for power/charging and maybe data – though I’ve only heard of a rumored port of the watch – USB-C (or 3.1) would take up a lot of space – as I understand it…. though maybe they could do a USB 3.1/Lightning port mis-mash that could work well, backward compatible, etc…
I will be buying a MacBook and this doesn’t bother me at all. But I guess people need a first world problem to be outraged about.
USB-C appears to be much more like Thunderbolt – or even Thunderbolt light – as it has nearly the same bandwidth (10Gbps), though they do not say if its full duplex (maybe I missed that – I would generally assume USB 3 and up is full duplex normally), it also looks like USB C can handle more power and is more like Apple’s lightning port, which I remember they wanted to emulate this … so USB C is equivalent to: Lightning port cable + Thunderbolt (1/light) + USB 3/2
Maybe this explains it better:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB#TYPE-C
I’ll prob wait for the next gen version – as 16GB seems about right – and we can find out the real work capabilities/limitations. Maybe this new MacBooks is an “iPad Heavy”? It would be interesting to see iOS go more in the direction of OS X. Apple did finally fix multi monitor support.
Now if Apple could only get rid of the damn shiny and reflective displays (seriously, its like the 90’s all over again and many people have to buy anti glare “screens”).
My understanding is that the Lightning port saves lots of space vs old older 30pin style. Space on these portables is at a premium, so I would imaging Apple could tweak the Lightning port (maybe Lignting Port 2.0?), but the form factor would remain the same….
Also the Lightning port is fairly new. People sometimes forget that the old 30 pin style was started on the iPods – after Apple dropped Firewire (and/or Apple made them more PC/USB centric).
Bluetooth loses sound quality as compared to an analog audio connection, maybe that weighed into the decision. Or maybe it was a “bridge too far” moment and they decided to let one family of existing peripherals work as-is for a generation or two longer.
edited to add: Does Bluetooth Audio Still Suck?
http://lifehacker.com/does-bluetooth-audio-still-suck-1505063323
The Apple Watch charging cable at the Apple Store is USB-A – not Lightning.
Apple Watches don’t have any ports at all.
Pure BT wireless for data, and induction for charging (but powered by a USB port).
(Now, to answer David M’s question, I would not be at all surprised to see a USB-C-ended Apple Watch cable at some point. Especially once they ship more than one model with a USB-C.
I think the port Moe is thinking of is the internal, unexposed debug/diagnostics port.)
“Is not”?
Depends on who you are.
I never used more than one port on my old MBA – and almost never used the USB at all.
Seriously, I can’t even remember for sure using a USB port on it even once, though I think I must have at some point.
If you think “man, I totally need multiple ports built in, and my use cases are ___, ___, and ___, which I do more than once a year – but do actually do, not think I might want to do”, you are not the market for this product.
Too many people both care about sound quality (see Dayv!’s post), or are worried about having their headphones lose charge while trying to listen to stuff.
(Realistic or not, the worry is there.)
Plug-in headphones aren’t gonna die anytime soon.
As for the Mac mini, it is geared at replacing your existing PC while
you keep your peripherals. Eliminating ports on it kinda defeats the
purpose of the Mac mini.
My one problem with that is that you’re talking about Thunderbolt.
Nobody uses Thunderbolt on a PC (except the rarified stratum of, maybe, PC video editors … who will never, ever buy a Mini to replace their workstation).
I’ve had multiple PCs with Thunderbolt (as well as multiple Macs with it), and never used a single Thunderbolt peripheral … yet.
Keeping Tbolt on the iMac and Pro and MBP? Definitely.
Mini? Maybe.
Everything else? Naw.
I think a lot of people are misunderstanding this notebook. Watch the Keynote and see how Apple positioned it. They talk extensively about improvements to the keyboard, display, trackpad and battery. And they talk about wireless.
I think they see this as a notebook more akin to how we would use an iPad or iPhone: you don’t use it sat at a desk with it plugged into a keyboard, mouse, screen and power, but rather take it with you using it wirelessly. You plug stuff in only when needed, maybe charging it overnight etc.
A second USB-C port would have been excellent if it can be used for plug-in headphones, even with a little adapter. Then there’d at least be a second USB-C option for plug-ins while charging.
I do understand Apple’s thinking: With a 10 hour battery life, the chance is minimal someone will be charging when they need to connect something else, especially when considering the target market for these (remember they are not MacBook Pro).
Still, two of those USB-C’s might have been the key.
It makes sense, except for the iMac part. the 5K iMac would certainly benefit from Thunderbolt, considering it’s being targeted at video editors. Especially considering the current Mac Pro can’t push a 5K monitor.
Someone yesterday said there’s a new third wireless standard that will connect the iPhone and the Watch. But I’m not sure I believe it.
But a USB C port would be vastly too big for an iPhone, let alone an Watch.
No worries. Though USB C has solved some of the issues that make USB unsuitable for high-end video editing, it still doesn’t have the streaming bandwidth video requires.