I dont think so. I say this because my Lenovo thinkpad which is smaller and thinner, lighter in every way than my M2 16" MBP has two legacy usb-a ports and 3 usbc where the mbp has none yet oodles of additional space comparative to the smaller TP. My opinion is that Apple made this decision with the intent to force (at least within the Apple ecosystem) removal of usba from their product line. Yes we can buy an adapter DUH, but that is not the point. Usb-a is still incredibly useful for so many reasons and while I agree 110% that usb-c has some amazing features in power delivery, data transfer etc, I dont agree that its existence should be at the cost of usb-a. I definitely believe Apple stumbled here. My opinion anyhow.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
USB-A
- Thread starter Ratcheter
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Most things that are USB-C can also be adapted to work with a USB-A port. There are a relatively low number of devices that actually benefit from the improvements that USB-C provides.
Case in point - the TASCAM Model 12 which is a fairly popular USB recording interface features a USB-C connection, however it only communicates at USB2 rates. As a result, TASCAM's own documentation says that connecting to a USB-A or USB-C host will result in the same performance, and that the only major consideration needed is to make sure it is connected directly to a dedicated host controller. It happens to be the only device I have connected via USB-C on my PC, because that way I know it is on its own controller.
To be fair, that was the question being asked about USB-A in the late 1990's when external modems, printers, scanners, ZIP drives, and input devices were still most commonly using serial, parallel, PS/2, and SCSI connections.
The only difference between then and now is that there were actually some real compelling reasons you could give as an answer to that question:
- USB is hot-pluggable
- USB communicates at a fast enough rate to support higher speed devices
- USB is easily expandable and supports more devices on a single port than SCSI or parallel
- USB supports longer cable lengths than all of the above
- USB Scanners and printers are more reliable when used together than a daisy-chained parallel setup (common on PCs)
- USB delivers power
For the most part, there is no list of compelling advantages like the one above that pushes people from USB-A to USB-C, except in the case of high-power or high-bandwidth devices.
It isn't antiquated in the least any more than your 110 outlet connection is antiquated. Computer standards don't become antiquated because they are old. They only become antiquated when something significantly better replaces it. USB-C has not, and probably will not replace USB-A any time soon, because it doesn't offer any significant improvement for the vast majority of devices that currently support USB-A.
"Tech evolves" is the lamest excuse (and the most common one, it seems) when it comes to switching standards. Not a single one of my keyboard, mouse, label printer, UPS, or busy light would see any improvement in functionality if they went from USB-A to USB-C. I have two devices that might see improvements if they went USB-C (webcam and audio interface - the latter actually IS USB-C but only communicates at 480Mbps aka USB2).
USB-C provides improvements for displays, hard drives, very large audio or video interfaces, and things that require high power delivery. That is a very small percentage of devices that communicate over USB. The rest have absolutely no compelling reason to move to USB-C, other than, as you say, "because, evolution."
Buying new cables, adapters, hubs, or devices in order to get exactly the same performance out of those things you've already spent hundreds or thousands of dollars on seems sillier to me.
"Early adopters" is actually a funny way to put it, since it has been quite a number of years since Apple started releasing devices that are USB-C-only.
While not a huge expense and presumably not a huge inconvenience, the need to buy a separate cable was still an inconvenience and an expense that would not have been needed had you had a USB-A port available on your computer. It would be one thing if you actually got something useful out of the deal (like a faster transfer or charging rate between your PC and your e-reader). But it sounds a lot to me like that extra expense and inconvenience just got you back what you lost.
This is the entire point for us USB-A neophytes. We don't have a problem with change. We have a problem with pointless change. Having to jump through hoops and spend cash just to get back what we lost and to gain absolutely nothing in return is.. annoying.
Each additional USB-A port added to your computer most likely comes with a BOM cost far less than the USB-C cable or adapter many of you are advocating others to purchase.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
So, I understand that a lot of this sentiment comes from looking at what happened after the iMac came out. Apple rightly gets a lot of credit for pushing USB's adoption by peripheral manufacturers when they dropped legacy ports from their machines in the late 1990s, but there is a lot more context to consider about that time and today.
When Apple dropped SCSI, Serial, and ADB from their machines, this left a lot of their own peripheral manufacturing partners scrambling to develop USB devices to replace their Apple-specific products. This led to the deluge of Apple-themed USB products (that also happened to work with USB-equipped PCs). Those manufacturers were able to charge a premium for the products that they added USB to, and that extra cash infusion also helped push them to deliver USB-enabled devices to the rest of the PC world. As PC users saw the advantages of USB and Microsoft managed to pull its own head out of its ass with Windows USB support, USB-only devices became more common.
The difference with today is that Apple no longer has many peripheral partners making "Apple-specific" devices, outside of the few specifically-styled products like Mac mini USB hubs and Apple-styled keyboards. Most peripheral makers support Macs and Windows with most or all of their products. Apple no longer has the ability to drive these peripheral makers into making this kind of massive change. All Apple removing these ports from their machines is going to accomplish is making life slightly more annoying for their own users.
Well, tell Apple not me. I think it seems to work perfectly fine, but Apple has a habit of deciding things are outdated before they actually go out of common use.
Again, you don’t have to convince me. I was the guy mad about the floppy drive being removed. I had a stack of perfectly good floppy discs but no, I had to buy a thumb drive to do the exact same thing.
One reason is that the Logi Bolt allows some mice to use a higher polling rate (mostly useful for gaming mice).
This diagram actually proves the opposite of what you seem to think it does. USB-A is only the first two connectors in that picture, and they both universally plug into the same port. The four connectors after it are various different forms of USB-B, with USB-C being the one on the far right. You could very well have any of the last five connectors at the end of a cable with the first two connectors on the opposite end. That is how the "U" in "Universal" came about.
USB-C didn't do anything different with the "universality" of USB at all. The only thing you really have a complaint about is USB-B, which I agree is a bit of a ********. But it is a ******** that has been largely dealt with.
I certainly don’t think USB-A “needs to die”, and I understand that going forward tons of people (myself included) are going to have USB-A peripherals for years to come.
However, we cannot ignore the latest European union law that demands USB-C be included on every smart phone, tablet, laptop, headphone, etc device going forward.
Might sound like a tiny, stupid thing, but absolutely is not.
Because of this ruling, 10 years from now you won’t be able to use a device from the past 10 years without some type of USB-C port, the last 10 years being 2025 through 2035 and going forward.
Simply because of that European Union law, USB-C will become the most common port on the planet, not out of the will of these companies or consumers, but by force.
With that in mind, if I were creating a device and my options were three USB-C ports or one USB-A and one C, it makes all the sense in the world to just go ahead and go all in on C.
2025 me might hate it, but 2035 me certainly won’t.
No the "said Samsung TV" has only the display against the wall, the controller for the TV with all the connection ports lies on top of my CD player. The USB-A port has a USB-A extension cable to the front which makes it very convenient to put a thumb drive containing all the TV shows we want to watch each night. Streaming via airplay doesn't seem to work; too much wireless interference I think.
This is true, and even though this only applies technically to Europe, manufacturers are not going to make regional specific devices if they don’t have to.
I actually prefer USB-A to C with one exception. It only goes in one way, and that always annoys me. I really like that it’s more sturdy. I find C can easily get accidentally knocked out, but this never happens to me with A.
If they made a larger USB-C, that would be perfect!
"Just because...." LOL. There is only one manufacturer in the world that thinks that USB-A is obsolete enough to remove it from the majority of their desktop computers, and it is only the most loyal customers of that one manufacturer that seem to be crowing about "needing to get rid of" that "old, outdated, broken, disaster" of a connector.
This conversation would not have anywhere near this level of participation on any other tech forum. Anywhere.
We don't live in a vacuum. You should know as well as everyone else in here that this has very little to do with "people" not seeing this as a meaningful problem. It is a specific group of people with one specific commonality.
Yeah I understood that, but its not the same as the type A port can't do the things, whereas C can.
It's like trying to convert your battery pack back into 120/240V AC to power your house...
And that's because those who choose to be on that computing platform have no choice but to use that hardware manufacturer. There was a brief period of Mac clones decades ago, but Steve Jobs came back and I don't think he liked the competition. If we still had Power Computing, I think hardware would look a little different. At a minimum, you'd have a choice.
Apple's not the only company that likes control; sounds like some people at Nintendo are seriously mad about leaks that gave us some advance idea about the (for crying out loud, it's about time) upcoming Switch 2. Turns out some people prefer advance notice to being surprised later, and this time, those people got what they wanted.
Apple gonna Apple.
Except that you didn't buy a thumb drive to use with your 1998 iMac. Because they didn't exist yet. That's why I sold a metric f-ton of Zip and LS-120 drives alongside iMacs.
True. But we also cannot ignore that the law is specifically referring to the use of USB-C as a charging standard and does not prescribe anything beyond that.
If you had engineers who were so incompetent that those were your only two choices, then you have bigger problems than the EU's charging standard law.
Valid argument back in 2016 when Apple launched USB-C only MacBook Pro.
Not valid in 2025 when adapters, hubs, monitors, and accessories are so cheap and plentiful.
You can still connect a USB-C phone to a USB-A port (with a suitable cable or dongle) and it will charge and sync. You might not get the highest-power fast charging that USB-C can support -but even plugging in to a regular USB-C port doesn't guarantee that, either.
Anyway - nobody is asking for all USB-C/Thunderbolt ports to be removed, just for a few USB-A ports to be retained - particularly on desktop systems - esp. since the SoC can only support 3-4 full function TB4/5 ports (the ones with 20-40Gbps, 15W power and DisplayPort). Any additional USB-C ports have to be USB 3-only and can't really do anything that USB-A ports couldn't.
The M2 Max Studio, for example, has 4 TB4 ports (all the SoC can drive), 2 USB 3-only Type C ports on the front and still manages to squeeze in a pair of USB-A ports on the back.