Skip to main content

USB-C: The Right Move, But Only In The Right Way

Apple has come in for a lot of criticism over its switch from regular USB 3.0 ports using the Type A connector to USB 3.1 ports using the Type C connector and whilst the criticism is valid, it's only so if you understand why Apple hasn't served its customers well by the way it has made the switch.

First of, for a device that is designed to be thin and light above everything else discarding all legacy ports and switching to USB-C  is absolutely the right move. Anyone buying a MacBook is doing so because they are prepared to make sacrifices in order to have the most portable laptop possible. Other ultra-mobile devices adopt the same approach.

In this case the new connector provides a standard power connector which can also be used with a dock or dongle when required to provide access to all the legacy ports that are sometimes required. As an ultraportable machine it's a fair trade off.

On a machine which is aimed at power users and does not trade on portability as its main selling point abandoning legacy ports for USB-C is a clumsy way of saying to customers 'we will dictate what you use and how'.  Even throwing a boat load of ports at the problem doesn't make for much of a solution.

Yes it certainly future proofs the MBP, given that the switch to the new connector is picking up pace, especially on smartphones.  The cost is that users buying the machine today have to pack a bag full of dongles to make any legacy equipment work. Had Apple mixed USB-A and USB-C ports on the MBP it would have made the machine a much better option, both now and in the future.

It seems odd to be dinging Apple for supporting an emerging standard, as I'm glad that Apple has chosen to work well with others - not something that is guaranteed when we're talking about new Apple products.

The way in which it has been done really doesn't benefit anyone, except perhaps dongle and accessory makers, who will have a field day shipping fixes for Apples indulgence.


Popular posts from this blog

F1: Robert Kubica Impresses In Renault Test Run

The car may be old but its the performance of the driver that's the story here. Robert Kubica returned to F1, after a fashion, earlier this week with an extensive test run in a 2012 Lotus Renault F1 car at Valencia.
The age of the car and the circuit were likely determined by F1's current rules which ban testing, but the reason for Kubica being in the car is far more interesting. Considered by many to be a potential World Champion and certainly one of the fastest drivers of his generation, Kubica's F1 career seemed to be over after a 2011 crash whilst driving in the Rally of Andora. His Skoda Fabia was penetrated by a guardrail in the high speed accident partially severing his right arm.
Up until last year Kubica has been competing in rallying, with the expectation that the limited movement in his repaired arm would prohibit a return to single seater racing.
So this week's test is both interesting and confusing. Interesting because Kubica completed 115 laps of the ret…

F1: Robert Kubica's Williams Test Asks More Questions Than It Answers

Comparing driver's times at a tyre evaluation test like last week's Abu Dhabi event is difficult at the best of times, but when trying to assess the performance of a driver who has been out of the sport for six years, that difficulty level is raised even higher.
On the face of it Robert Kubica's test for Williams was a success. Fastest of the three Williams drivers present the headlines look promising. However, taking into consideration the different tyres used to set those times muddies the water considerably.
Kubica ran a three lap qualifying simulation on the new 'hyper-soft' tyre - which should have given him a two-second advantage. Correcting for tyres it would appear that Kubica was significantly slower than Sergei Sorotkin - who was on the harder 'soft' tyre - and marginally quicker than Lance Stroll, the team's only contracted driver.

Stroll's family fortune currently funds Williams, so there' no chance that he will be anywhere but in a…

Panos Panay's Defence Of Microsoft Surface Hardware Sounds Eerily Familiar

This weekend I went out with my ten year old daughter to select a laptop for her school year beginning in January. The schools requirements are quite specific, requiring a Windows 10 device, with a preference for a touchscreen and a stylus. She chose a Surface Pro, after trying a large number of different options. Having seen the way I use my own Surface Pro - and tried it herself there was only ever going to be two options - and the other was a Surface Laptop.
I tell you this so that you understand I am a buyer of Microsoft's products through choice, not compulsion. I'm on my third Surface device now. 
So when Panos Panay dismissed reports of the death of the Surface hardware line, I was very interested to see exactly how strong these denials were. Especially how they reflect what has gone before. To whit: Windows 10 Mobile.
Panay claimed that Microsoft is in hardware for the long haul. Almost exactly mirroring the words of Terry Myerson, when he claimed Windows Mobile was g…