[colanderman]

Where could you possibly go where (a) there are three monitors, a mouse, and keyboard waiting for you, and (b) none of those devices have a built-in USB hub, and you did not think to keep a USB hub there?

Either you're mobile and need the USB ports, or stationary and there's a hub there. What use case am I missing?

[connor4312]

> Where could you possibly go where (a) there are three monitors, a mouse, and keyboard waiting for you, and (b) none of those devices have a built-in USB hub

That describes my workplace. (But with two rather than three monitors.) Standard monitors that operate over HDMI/DVI/etc don't have USB hubs without a separate USB connection, most keyboards are the same way.

> Either you're mobile and need the USB ports, or stationary and there's a hub there. What use case am I missing?

Sure, you can work around the lack of IO by buying a hub, but the point was that previously you would not have needed yet another dongle.

[colanderman]

So buy the USB-C hub/dock/whatever and leave it at work. No need to carry it around with you. This isn't really any different than the case of a traditional laptop with a dock, except instead of some weird giant proprietary connector, you have a small standardized connector.

[merb]

> USB-C hub/dock/whatever

There aren't that many good one's. What I would need would be one which handle's at least, 4-6 USB, two HDMI, Ethernet and charging would be a bonus.

[lmm]

Can I tempt you over to the Microsoft side? The Surface Dock has exactly those connections - I leave everything connected to the dock as my "workstation", and carry my Surface Book travelling when need be.

[douche]

If you're being tempted over to the Microsoft side, you might as well just buy a Dell or HP or Thinkpad or whatever, and get Mac-level specs at half the price, and usually a good collection of today's standard ports.

[lmm]

It's hard to match the Surface Book on specs, at least if you care about the size and weight and resolution and touchscreen. I went shopping 6 months ago with requirements of: thin and light (13" or smaller), available in the UK, NVidia graphics, 12gb or more of RAM, reasonable processor, and touchscreen; I wasn't expecting to walk out with Microsoft hardware but the Surface Book was the only laptop I saw that (more-or-less - it's 13.5") matched up to that.

[ocdtrekkie]

I think the Surface Pro is still pretty competitive, though the Book and Studio are really out there on price. But that's the great thing about the Microsoft side... You have choices like buying the HP it the Dell.

[xenadu02]

Who wants to run Windows?

[edwinjm]

Apple's idea is that your monitor will be the hub. See the new LG Ultrafine Display. Just connect your Mac with one cable and you're ready to work.

[monkmartinez]

Can we say that, at this time, Apple's idea here is a bit dumb/half-baked/incongruent/silly/frustrating and it will materially hurt them in the longer term?

[matwood]

It's the short term where the pain will be felt if there is any. The long term is clear, USB-C throughout which I think is a good thing. What I'm confused about is why the iPhone7 was also not USB-C. I fully expect to see the next iPhone switch over.

[threeseed]

None of what you said is remotely true. Betting entirely on USB-C as the one true connector is not half baked and is quite reasonable. And by using it solely it will force accessory manufacturers to build the docks, monitors etc.

This has all happened before with the original iMac. And it was universally seen in the long run as one of the best decisions they made.

[inopinatus]

On the contrary, it is exactly what I want. And also exactly what I do now with the 27" thunderbolt display. The same way my TV is now my universal HDMI switch.

Monitor-as-dock makes a great deal of sense for the roving user with a fixed base.

[kartickv]

I wouldn't buy a $1300 monitor that worked only with a Thunderbolt 3 device. It must work with USB-C and DisplayPort, even if only at UHD resolution than 5K. If I buy a Windows laptop tomorrow, and it doesn't have Thunderbolt 3, I can't throw away my monitor and buy a new one. Or if I want to plug my new monitor into any existing Mac model, which doesn't have Thunderbolt 3.

I would be happy if an adapter exists for this job. The monitor needn't natively support DisplayPort.

[exhilaration]

That would be pretty cool actually, so only a single connection for everything? Like a docking station! Why isn't Apple making one?

[Bud]

Because Apple does not NEED to make every single necessary object in the universe. LG is making them, they are 5k, they have wide color gamut and 3x USB-C out, and they are in the Apple Store. That's good enough. This enables Apple to focus on what they are good at.

[dictum]

If we stretch this approach, Apple will become good at making the iPhone and nothing else.

The display was the soul of the desktop Mac. It's easier to perceive your Macbook as another PC when your window into it is another mostly generic-looking LG display, even if the panel in the Apple branded display was manufactured by LG.

Perhaps they want to focus on the iMac again and don't want the MBP + display combo to cannibalize it. But again, with extreme focus soon they'll be abandoning the iMac for good.

(I still love macOS and I enjoy how the new MBP looks)

[henrikschroder]

They already did, it's called the Thunderbolt Display.

[phonon]

http://plugable.com/products/ud-ultcdl/

came up in a quick search. Looks good to me!

[merb]

not available in my country tough.

[bwilliams18]

Look at Thunderbolt 3 docks instead, theres a better selection of options...and I'm sure in the next few weeks there will be even more.

[wlesieutre]

> That describes my workplace. (But with two rather than three monitors.) Standard monitors that operate over HDMI/DVI/etc don't have USB hubs without a separate USB connection, most keyboards are the same way.

But your run of the mill Dell office monitors do have a USB hub, most often 2 ports on the back panel for keyboard/mouse and 2 ports on the side for flash drives and other transient accessories.

colanderman's point is that you should get a USB cable and use that hub instead of individually plugging everything into the laptop. Three video connections and one hub connection gets you all the connectivity you need at a desk. If you're mobile, you'll certainly need less.

[vacri]

My run-of-the-mill Dell monitors at work don't have USB ports.

[colanderman]

I have a Dell U2410, which, while not exactly run-of-the-mill (it is wide-gamut), isn't that fancy yet does have all the ports wlesieutre mentioned. (Granted, they require a separate USB connection, but it is an older monitor.)

At work I have an Apple monitor that has multiple USB ports and an Ethernet port on the back of it. I think it has speakers too. All that and the display run across the mini-DP connection. Again, not exactly run-of-the-mill, but well within the price range of Apple's target market, and given Apple's push in that direction, it's liable to be commonplace in a couple years anyway.

[odbol_]

I'm a VJ. You absolutely need that many ports when doing visuals at a concert or venue. That was the whole reason I bought a MBP. Now it looks like PC might be a better choice; Apple has abandoned the professional "workhorse" market and is leaning towards the Facebook/email machine market.

[bwilliams18]

You can now get four DisplayPort outputs from two ports: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01F81EIBC/ref=ox_sc_act_t...

And they can all be 4k.

[odbol_]

First of all, that's Windows only. Says so right there in the listing.

Second of all, it's yet another dongle I have to carry around and potentially lose. There's often not a whole lot of room on stage, so space is precious.

Thirdly, those dongles that convert video are usually slow garbage. If I am performing as a VJ, I need the video to be frame-synced and perfectly synced to the music without lag. I can do that just fine on my current MBP (run 3 monitors at once from the ports built-in to the computer. That's specifically why I bought it.) And now I can do that just fine from some Asus laptop since Apple doesn't seem to want my business anymore.

[r00fus]

Product doesn't indicate support for MBP.

[blhack]

My office? I would suspect many, many offices of people who post here?

[exhilaration]

Yup. My MBP at work: one thunderbolt port for an external monitor, the other for ethernet. One USB port for my nice keyboard, the other free. And the magsafe for charging. So I'm currently using 4 of 5 connections, and the new MBP will only have 3?

[bwilliams18]

You'll be able to use a single thunderbolt 3 port to get power, monitor, ethernet, and USB accessories, sit down, plug one cable in and you're off to the races.

[jsjohnst]

So now you can plug a single cable in and get power, display, and accessories. Where's the problem?

[Rebelgecko]

I'm guessing people don't upgrade their TVs, monitors, and projectors as often as they upgrade their laptops. I can't even find a USB-C adapter that would work with my current display (which was made by Apple)

[jsjohnst]

Here you go: Kanex Thunderbolt 3 to Thunderbolt Adapter https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01EJ4XL08/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_B5tf...

[ctrl-j]

> (a) there are three monitors, a mouse, and keyboard waiting for you, and (b) none of those devices have a built-in USB hub.

I don't know of a monitor that doesn't require a USB A-B cable to provide USB, so you're looking at three $70 adapters, plus three USB A-B cables. Sure maybe all that lives at the office. It's still less convenient.

I still can't get over the fact that you can't plug your new iPhone 7 into your new Macbook Pro without a dongle.

[lee_s]

That's kinda the point, the new USB-C monitors have built-in USB hubs and charging. So you only need one cable to plug in all of your monitors and USB devices. It's going to take a little while for everyone to get there, but for now there are ~$80 hubs that will break out all of these ports.

> I still can't get over the fact that you can't plug your new iPhone 7 into your new Macbook Pro without a dongle.

You've never been able to though? There is a USB-C to Lightning cable.

[stouset]

I think he means, it doesn't even come in the box. Buy a MacBook Pro, buy an iPhone, and you can't even use one to charge the other without buying a separate cable or an adapter.

[bichiliad]

> You've never been able to though? There is a USB-C to Lightning cable.

I think it was more a complaint about the fact that you'd have to buy an additional adapter to be able to connect the two.

[FireBeyond]

So your argument is now not "you don't need to buy all manner of dongles" and instead "You just need to buy one of these new USB-C monitors"?

[lee_s]

No, I just think the one cable solution with a USB-C monitor is really neat. I won't be getting one for personal use because they're too expensive right now.

I'll be picking up one of the $60-100 hubs/docks that have a single USB-C connector and HDMI/Ethernet/USB-A to connect all of my devices. When the monitors are cheaper in 4 years I'll buy one of those.

My point was that we're actually moving to a really good solution where you can plug in a single, non-proprietary cable and get all the throughput and peripheral connectors you could ever need. It's not even particularly expensive compared to a dock 5-10 years ago.

[colanderman]

My Apple monitor at work provides USB and Ethernet over the same cable (mini-DP) it uses for video. Every day I go in I just connect the mini-DP and MagSafe (both of which come from the monitor) and magically all my peripherals are connected.

It seems like in the new USB-C world, I'd only have to connect one cable. Bonus points if it's sturdier than mini-DP and less flaky than MagSafe. Sure beats those weird-ass proprietary docks that used to be common ~10 years ago.

[AlexandrB]

> It seems like in the new USB-C world, I'd only have to connect one cable.

That's something I've never seen properly explained. Can you charge at 100W at the same time as using Thunderbolt 3 connectivity? It strikes me as unlikely since the power delivery and the signaling would have to share the same pins/wires.

Edit: I stand corrected after seeing that new LG monitor. Now I'm just curious how it works. Even PoE can't deliver 100w and Thunderbolt 3 uses much higher speeds while having to inject power.

[jsjohnst]

There's a couple reasons for PoE not supporting over 36W but USB-C supporting PD at up to 100W.

1) PoE only uses two pairs of wires for transmitting current, USB-C PD uses four pairs.

2) Ethernet cables are rated for much longer lengths, show me a 100m USB cable.

3) Ethernet is typically run in walls and more often than not is grouped into bundles, so heat dissipation is an issue.

4) PoE delivers power at ~50v, USB-C PD does 20v.

Also, piggybacking on the other commenter's reply, PoE voltage is carried on the same wires that are transmitting data (for 1000Base-T anyway)

[jessaustin]

There's no physical reason that power and signal can't share lines. Any particular device or protocol might fail to implement that, but PLC and even POTS show that it's possible and not even new.

[WildUtah]

The principle of power and signal separation has been used to send multiple signals over a wire since the duplex telegraph in 1872. It's one of the few things in this world older than the headphone jack standard that we've been using since 1878.

[jessaustin]

You may be surprised when you stick a multimeter into a standard POTS jack and read 48V. (Admittedly, the voltage is lower when the line is in use, but it's still there, which is why old-fashioned phones don't need separate power cords.)

[xenadu02]

The USB-C connector dedicates 4 pairs of pins (8 total) to power transmission (VBUS and GND). It only does that to give enough contact area and enough conductor circumference in the cable to support 100w transmission.

It also has two pairs of unshielded twisted pair for non-superspeed (USB 2.0) though only one pair is used in the cable apparently; which USB 2 channel you get depends on which way the cable is plugged in I guess.

It has a pair for sideband use. A pair for configuration and control.

The data primarily travels over the four high-speed differential signal pairs; two TX pairs and two RX pairs.

All USB 3 cables must have a chip in them. It communicates over the C&C channel to select how the high-speed pairs are used. When a display is connected, one TX/RX set are used for USB 3 and the other for DisplayPort.

USB 3 also supports "alternate" modes, so the C&C can negotiate that all high-speed pairs are used for Thunderbolt which is just the PCI-Express bus. Intel added the ability to interleave DisplayPort packets with the PCI-Express data. I assume that displays with USB 3 built-in are simply connecting a PCI-E USB hub to the Thunderbolt interface since in that mode there is no actual USB signal in the cable. USB 2 can use the dedicated signal pair for that and not interfere with DisplayPort or Thunderbolt traffic.

Thunderbolt is a nicer standard in some ways - interleaving means if you aren't using a 16bpp 5K display at max refresh rate you have more bandwidth available for other devices. With USB 3 you get half the available bandwidth if you connect a display. Thunderbolt is also old-school in the sense that it projects the CPU's bus to external peripherals... something all early computers used to do. Everything old is new again!

It is obvious USB-3 was very forward-looking. The C&C channel means some future version of the standard can drop USB-2 support and start connecting the unconnected pair if both ends negotiate for it. Now you have an extra TX/RX channel to give you +50% bandwidth. You can also imagine taking over the side channel pins. If you assume the next-gen standard can double USB-3's 10Gbps and add in double the data pairs that would be 40Gbps which matches Thunderbolt 3. Apply the same math to Thunderbolt and that's 160Gbps.

[e40]

Work and home, traveling between them.

[kgwgk]

"and you did not think to keep a USB hub there?"