[awalton]

Ugh Intel. We just fixed the USB problem of "I can't figure out which way to plug this thing in", why do you have to go and add the complication of "Wait, is this a Thunderbolt or USB C device/port?"

This is why we can't have nice things.

[ghshephard]

I think you've got it backwards - if I'm reading this correctly, and you own a (for the sake of argument), 2016 MacBook Pro - your Thunderbolt 3 ports will support everything. USB/Thunderbolt are now using the same physical interface (no need for dongles), and Thunderbolt 3 will support USB 3.1. In the incredibly rare (will likely never be seen by an average consumer) scenario that you have some high-end equipment that actually requires Thunderbolt 3, and not USB 3.1 - you'll definitely know whether your device supports it, and on which ports.

Put in regular terms - you can now use your USB 3.1 device in any port that you can plug into.

[toothbrush]

I admit i'm not super clued-up on this, but i just looked up the new MacBook, it turns out that the sum total of its ports is one (1) USB-C and one (1) 3.5mm headphone jack. Does that mean i have to choose between charging, connecting a video projector, or using some USB hub i'll have to lug around to be able to read someone's presentation off a USB key while simultaneously connected to a projector? I wouldn't want to be in a position where i'm forced to run on the battery in certain circumstances, either (i'm a bit paranoid about the battery running out -- this is not impossible if one is giving a presentation after having spent a few hours on a train [in a backwards country without power outlets, of course] working hard)...

[ghshephard]

The new macbook is for people who are 100% focussed on mobility, and nothing else. That is a small niche of people. Think of it like an non-touch iPad with a keyboard, and you kind of have a sense of its purpose. The vision for the Macbook is "Wireless".

Just looking at your use cases though:

o Charging - the idea is that you have battery life in the 8+ hour range, so that when you are connected to a projector, you don't need to be charging.

o Reading a presentation off a USB key while connected to a projector - I've been doing that exact thing for the last 3 years, on an almost weekly basis - and 100% of the time I borrow the USB key for a second, and then hand it back to the owner (or put it in my USB wallet). The important thing there is sufficient local storage.

But yes - The MacBook is probably not for you, and it's definitely not for me.

I'm just psyched that my next MacBook Air (or whatever they call it - maybe I'll have to move upstream to the Macbook Pro if they dump the "Air" line) will have three USB capable ports instead of the current 2 + 1 Thunderbolt.

[adiabatty]

Assuming you dislike carrying splitter dongles, it sounds like the new MacBook isn't for you.

(It's not for me, either.)

[monocasa]

But, ostensibly, there's going to be thunderbolt devices soon which, while having a USB Type-C plug, won't work in a regular USB port despite the Type-C plug.

[ghshephard]

Given that USB 3.1 + Type C ports support USB PD (100 Watts), and 10 Gigabit signaling rate (7.1 Gigabits demonstrated transmit) - the need for thunderbolt devices will be so excessively rare for the average consumer as to be a non-issue.

For the few Pro Users who Specifically paid a small fortune for their thunderbolt device - they will certainly know which port to plug it into, there will be zero confusion.

What's nice (awesome) about this, though, is that when Apple/Microsoft/Sony/Asus/whoever decides to differentiate their high-end products by offering Thunderbolt 3 ports that people will rarely have a use for, they can actually make use of them immediately as USB 3.1 ports. Right now I have a MacBook Air w/2 USB + 1 Thunderbolt Port. I have too carry Ethernet Dongles for both Thunderbolt and USB to cover the situation in which I run out of ports and need ethernet. And I frequently run into a situation in which I've used up my two USB ports, and my third adapter isn't thunderbolt (I know, I should carry a Thunderbolt -> USB adapter, but god, I carry so many cables already).

In this new world - I would have three, fully functional USB ports, with one of them also capable of functioning as a thunderbolt port should I have a Thunderbolt peripheral.

Awesomeness.

[bryanlarsen]

Source? Sure, it's theoretically possible that a TB3 5K@60Hz monitor won't work when plugged into a USB Type C port. But there would be no good reason for that, it should downgrade smoothly to either 5K@30Hz or 4K@60Hz.

[monocasa]

I'm running off of the assumption that Thunderbolt continues to use a different physical layer (which it pretty much has to to go faster than USB 3.1), and is piggy backing on USB Type-C's "Alternate Mode" which lets you negotiate different physical layers that you have a transceiver for.

EDIT: Looks like my assumption is correct:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_Type-C

[bryanlarsen]

Sure, but why wouldn't the TB3 transceivers be designed to support USB 3.1 as well? Those transceivers have a wide range of dynamic adaptation to support high speed transmission, so it doesn't seem like much of a stretch to adapt to USB 3.1 signalling levels & protocol.

[monocasa]

Because even above the physical layer, the two protocols are very, very different to the point that you're nearly doubling the amount of work that you have to do. USB at it's core is a host polled interface that looks like a network, and Thunderbolt is at it's core a multimaster RDMA interface. You'd basically be designing two different devices.

[orbitur]

Your USB device is guaranteed to work. If you have a TB device, then yes, you'll need to actually look at the port to see if the TB logo is near it.

Since TB devices are so uncommon, I don't see a problem.

[quonn]

Well, almost all devices will probably just use USB 3.1 anyway. The few exceptions are probably for professionals and they simply have to be plugged into a port with the thunderbolt symbol using cables that have a thunderbolt symbol, too.

[jkyle]

I think that's the point. Only one port, multiple protocols.

[ZenoArrow]

Not really. This is a smart move. Why can't the hardware can't support both? If it did, you wouldn't need to know which protocol was in use.