A machine can have "insanely good IO" if you're not judging it in the context of older hardware, yes.
Four thunderbolt ports is great. One adapter to plug in all of the things you mentioned is also great. iPhones and hard drives don't need dongles, they just need cables. A USB-C to USB-B 3.1 cable is $1.33 from Monoprice; USB 2.0 version is just $1.12. Not too shabby.
For iPhones: the only times I've had to plug my iPhone into my laptop is doing development, but a cable for that only costs $20.
But let's compare it to the previous (2015) MacBook Pro: two USB ports and two Thunderbolt-and-Displayport ports, and HDMI. Five ports total, but no flexibility. Our office was full of DP-to-DVI dongles already, so swapping one dongle for another seems like a no-op. Difference now is that we can buy USB-C monitors which also serve as a power source and a USB hub, meaning one cable to plug in my entire desk. That's something you can't really get on the old MacBooks (at least, not without spending a lot more than it costs to do it on the new MacBooks.
So yeah, the machine has "insanely good IO", and once the rest of the world catches up it'll be even better.
I feel that these discussions are always going back and forth because TB3 is a fantastic docking station port, and a niche port for everything else, so both sides are right. Comparing the 2016+ port selection to the 2015 one is a false dichotomy created by Apple. The straightforward upgrade path would have been to replace TB2 by TB3, like they did on the iMacs.
Exactly. There's nothing wrong with TB3 as a connectivity option, but it shouldn't be the only option.
I understand the desire to make the machine thin, which means the old USB had to go. But taking out the SD card slot makes it seem like they don't want you to have an easy way to add more onboard (-ish) storage space.
>So yeah, the machine has "insanely good IO", and once the rest of the world catches up it'll be even better.
I mean, that's the thing. Apple jumped ahead, and USB-C just isn't common. (At least, for me. I can't name any device I've used or even heard of that uses USB-C.) So, it's a less than practical option if you're in the market for a laptop, not so much insanely good.
I wouldn't buy a computer with only serial and parallel ports because none of my devices use them, and I wouldn't buy a computer with only USB-C ports, because none of my devices use them.
Four thunderbolt ports is great. One adapter to plug in all of the things you mentioned is also great. iPhones and hard drives don't need dongles, they just need cables. A USB-C to USB-B 3.1 cable is $1.33 from Monoprice; USB 2.0 version is just $1.12. Not too shabby.
For iPhones: the only times I've had to plug my iPhone into my laptop is doing development, but a cable for that only costs $20.
But let's compare it to the previous (2015) MacBook Pro: two USB ports and two Thunderbolt-and-Displayport ports, and HDMI. Five ports total, but no flexibility. Our office was full of DP-to-DVI dongles already, so swapping one dongle for another seems like a no-op. Difference now is that we can buy USB-C monitors which also serve as a power source and a USB hub, meaning one cable to plug in my entire desk. That's something you can't really get on the old MacBooks (at least, not without spending a lot more than it costs to do it on the new MacBooks.
So yeah, the machine has "insanely good IO", and once the rest of the world catches up it'll be even better.