3 ms·

While Apple has been in the business of simplifying ports there is a difference at least in previous cases we were ready to move on I'd argue. Back in 1999 I do

While Apple has been in the business of simplifying ports there is a difference at least in previous cases we were ready to move on I'd argue. Back in 1999 I don't think I had used a floppy for a few years, zip drives? Sure, but not a floppy. Dropping the optical drive was bound to happen, I don't think I've really used a optical media bay outside of a game console for years. However, every day at work, I plug my MacBook Retina into two monitors, plug in my USB 3.0 drive, sometimes my iPhone to charge or do dev stuffs, and charger, and frequently use my SD card slot as a 3rd HDD. Apple now is in the business of offloading the problem of I/O to the user, they haven't fixed it. It wouldn't have hurt the MacBook to include 2-4 ports, all USB3c

pg_is_a_butt 12y ago
define "hurt". having a single port simplifies the hardware bridge. multiplexing that to 4 ports would draw more power. what if you could have a battery that lasted 8 hours on a charge, or 8 hours and 20 minutes. what if the difference was only 5 minutes? what if it was an hour? pretty obvious then. with portable devices, battery life should trump most things.
epistasis 12y ago
I'm more than ready to move on to this, and would have been ready years ago. In 1999, floppy disk use was far more prevalent than the need for multiple USB ports is now. For your described use case, you'll just plug your Macbook into a USB3 hub or dongle with HDMI (I don't think this machine has enough graphics power for multiple external screens). You will actually have fewer cables to manage. And it actually would hurt the Macbook to include more ports. The current port is above the keyboard, likely because it can't fit under the keyboard. Adding more ports would mean increasing one of the dimensions. Given the versatility of the USB3C port, I think it's the best possible tradeoff. If you absolutely use lots of ports day to day, and can't use a hub, then this really isn't the computer for you, and Apple will even sell you one of those.
rayiner 12y ago
If you plug all that stuff in every day, why not just get a the inevitable hub apple is going to sell? That way just one cable to plug in each morning instead of 5.

pg_is_a_butt 12y ago

define "hurt". having a single port simplifies the hardware bridge. multiplexing that to 4 ports would draw more power. what if you could have a battery that lasted 8 hours on a charge, or 8 hours and 20 minutes. what if the difference was only 5 minutes? what if it was an hour? pretty obvious then. with portable devices, battery life should trump most things.

epistasis 12y ago

I'm more than ready to move on to this, and would have been ready years ago. In 1999, floppy disk use was far more prevalent than the need for multiple USB ports is now. For your described use case, you'll just plug your Macbook into a USB3 hub or dongle with HDMI (I don't think this machine has enough graphics power for multiple external screens). You will actually have fewer cables to manage. And it actually would hurt the Macbook to include more ports. The current port is above the keyboard, likely because it can't fit under the keyboard. Adding more ports would mean increasing one of the dimensions. Given the versatility of the USB3C port, I think it's the best possible tradeoff. If you absolutely use lots of ports day to day, and can't use a hub, then this really isn't the computer for you, and Apple will even sell you one of those.

rayiner 12y ago

If you plug all that stuff in every day, why not just get a the inevitable hub apple is going to sell? That way just one cable to plug in each morning instead of 5.