If that's the case then the interface will remain a compromise that has to work for both point and touch, and ends up being suboptimal for both. Touch input necessitates bigger hit targets, lots of additional negative space around important buttons rather than groups, and a much lower information density on anything that has a click/touch handler like a list in order to avoid accidental presses. Apps need to be written with a touch UI in mind to work well.
The line of thinking here applies to accessibility features as well. Luckily, it is uncool to say those things against the accessibility features, and there are even many good preemptive positive arguments, such as “a good design with accessibility in mind benefits everyone”. And those same arguments do apply for touch-enabled design as well; a good design with touch input in mind can benefit all.
It will likely compromise anti-glare performance too, since an oleophobic treatment will be required for the screen to not instantly be covered in a haze of fingerprints. For someone who has no use for touch this is a strict downgrade.
The only way touch on MacBooks can make a shred of sense is if it’s a non-default option in the configurator, much like the current nanotexture matte option.
I’ve got a MagSafe nightstand and powerbank that both leave the port free. I do use Bluetooth for audio so I don’t actually ever use the USB-C port at all.
Yeah, because I want to junk up my car with all that crap. You're just admitting that your "thin, elegant" Apple product becomes a Christmas tree of dongles to make it practical.
lol, it seems like you got out of the wrong side of the bed. My car (Tesla) has in-built Qi charging and a place to put both the driver and passenger phones, along with Bluetooth. I literally never use a cable with my phone.