Clarus

Some of the earlier posts seek to tar all docks (or the concept of docks, or the port situation) with the same brush of docks not providing enough power.
That is misdirection. The problem is not with Apple or the concept of docks, the problem is docks that are not up to date.

I bought an early OWC Thunderbolt 3 dock. I love it, one cable connects everything on the desk. It only provides 60 watts, but that was enough for my 13" MBP.
OWC has upgraded that dock. The current version does provide enough power for all current MBP models.
The current CalDigit dock mentioned by Wow321 also does provide enough power for all current MBP models.

If you are criticizing docks because you only want to look at old models and ignore the good ones, that is certainly your own personal problem, not a real world one.

As for this Plugable being reviewed, there is no excuse for a new Thunderbolt 3 dock to lack the power for a 16" MBP. Multiple other companies above do offer it.

I like Plugable devices in general, and of course this dock has enough power for my own 13", but a dock sold at that price point should be able to power any current MBP. This dock also lacks HDMI, and says if you want to plug in HDMI through one of the two DisplayPort outlets you must use an active adapter. These are limitations and extra costs that do not apply to other docks. Also, it does not seem to have Thunderbolt 3 pass-through since there is only one TB3 port. And using the USB-C ports for displays appears to have limitations according to the specs. None of these limitations are mentioned in the review. I will stick with my OWC dock which has proved to be much more versatile for my needs.

I'm not sure why this product got reviewed on AppleInsider.com, it's a bit of pricey overkill for an iPhone photographer...but...

I LOVE my Peak Design Travel Tripod. I am OK with the price because I got the cheaper aluminum version at the Kickstarter discount. I could not justify the cost of the carbon fiber version for my needs. I also was not satisfied traveling with other tripods of this type (I really try to travel light), but this one, the space-saving design makes the difference. It's the only tripod I can stand traveling with.

sapporobabyrtrns said:

I would be interested in this but the head is rubbish. Either Arca Swiss or RRS is the way to go. I need to contact PD to see if it is possible to rid of the awful head.

As already mentioned, what's the deal with dismissing it out of hand, without reading the article or the actual specs closely enough? The Peak marketing materials clearly state that the head is Arca Swiss compatible and easily removable, and they sell a Universal Head Adapter accessory that is basically a standard tripod screw so you can stick anything else you want on it. The head is suitable enough that I decided I did not need to buy the Universal Head Adapter.

I have Arca Swiss plates on a number of my equipment. It is no problem, because Peak designed their Capture Clip to use a compatible geometry, which is followed for their tripod head's quick release mechanism. If I want to put on on of my Arca Swiss equipped accessories, all I have to do is tilt it into the tripod quick release and lock it down. Some plates will not fit with the two safety screws on the PDTT head, so all you do is take the included hex wrench and unscrew them out, and now you're good to go.

Yes this thing costs more. So much more that teeming legions of people on photography forums complain about it (and other Peak products) being "overpriced." But we of all people, as Apple users, should understand why some well-designed things are worth a higher price. My 13" MacBook Pro is also "overpriced" to a similar degree, I mean it really kind of is (mine's a 2018; the 2019s are a better value, the 2019 16-inchers and the 2020 Air are also better values than a 2018 13"). But it's been earning its keep quite well.

I like the Peak tripod (and their other products) for many of the same reasons I choose Apple gear: Thoughtful design decisions that get the product out of the way of what it is you are trying to do so you can get it done faster and easier, design touches that make a real difference over the long haul.

ktappe said:

>The $999 MacBook Air model ships with a 1.1Ghz i3 processor

1.1Ghz i3?  Ouch.  I guess that lets Apple squeak in under that magic $1000 barrier, but one has to assume the GeekBench score on this model will be painfully low. It'll be suitable for grandma's email and Amazon browsing but little else.

What activities is 3.2GHz good for then? That's the TurboBoost speed, in other words, the speed when applications ask for maximum power and the cooling system can handle it.

The Geekbench score you're looking for will probably be closer to the high end GHz than the low, battery-saving end, if the MacBook Air cooling system is anywhere near as good as the improved cooling in the 16" MacBook Pro, which lets its CPU operate much closer to its TurboBoost max GHz (sustained) than the last 15" models did.

It's one of those reasons my 13" i5 MacBook Pro is faster than my old 15" i7, despite having similar base GHz. The newer 13" has a much higher clock speed ceiling.

I paraphrase what I wrote at the end of my earlier post in this same thread: There are obviously some commenters here who keep using their 1990s era view of how computers work to make uninformed evaluations of the highly adaptive dynamic technologies of today.

gatorguy said:

I did not realize the SSD could not be upgraded.  

There is no "SSD" as such.

There is not one big SSD block you can yank out, you won't find it. If you look at the teardowns, internal storage on Mac laptops is multiple chips scattered on the motherboard. Sometimes the chips are not even next to each other, or on opposite sides of the motherboard. These spread out chips are combined, ganged up, managed, and encrypted by the Apple T2 chip to appear as one big volume in your Finder.

tht said:

It's still a machine for older students, or as a client-server machine for web and data workers.

It's capable of much more than that. It packs a quad-core i7, fast SSD, enough graphics power to drive a 6K external display...that's more powerful than some of the older MacBook Pros that I got "real" paid work done with. This new MacBook Air could probably sub pretty well for my current 2018 13" quad-core i5 MacBook Pro that I am running a business off of. Some would point out that my MBP has double the Thunderbolt 3 ports than the Air, but since I run everything through a desktop or mobile hub, I have found that I rarely need more than one port on the machine itself.

The degree to which some downplay the capabilities of today's computers is astounding. There are obviously people walking around who have a perception of the MacBook/MacBook Air that is 15 years old.