crowley

Hedware said:

Apple was obviously waiting for the Europeans to mandate USB-C for mobile devices. Apple is obviously on the side of the socialists and communists. 

mike1 said:

CheeseFreeze said:

If they'd adopted an actual standard years ago, we wouldn't have to be in dongle nightmare today. 
And no wireless charging is just an ridiculously bad user experience. A pen sticking out the port... pfffff....

Oh please. Then you would have complained about the transition years ago.

Over the next year or so, I will throw away about a dozen or more lightening cables for no good reason and then spend extra $$ to replace them just to have a USB-C connector. It is what it is, I guess

JP234 said:

roundaboutnow said:

JP234 said:

ITGUYINSD said:

JP234 said:

So give up a Thunderbolt port on your Mac to get more thunderbolt ports? You had two, now you have three. And some USB ports, Ethernet, and an SD port.

I got a dock with HDMI,  Ethernet, SD, micro-SD, (2) USB 3.0 for $16.19 on Amazon.

Is this one really worth $300? Not to me. Maybe you.

Depends on what Mac you connect it to.  Worst case, the MBP 13 M1 has 2 TB ports.  One used for this dock, leaves me with 1 on the MBP and 3 on the dock.  4 Total by my count.  And it's not just "some USB" ports, they are 10Gbps each.  So yes -- if you just need some generic ports to plug in a mouse or a thumb drive, a $20 dock is fine

For those who need more TB4 ports and high-speed USB 3.2 ports plus Ethernet, this is good.  Expensive, but good.  There isn't much else out there like this.

Like M68000 said -- no HDMI is a big bummer.

Your math is just one port off: you have to connect one of those 3 on the dock to one of the TB ports on your Mac. That's a total of 3.

Thunderbolt is expensive tech, no matter who's producing it, and it's really only useful to a handful of professionals in the I/O intensive applications. 10Gb/s USB-C will do just fine for the other 99.99%. So will two USB-C ports, for that matter.

FTA: On the front of the dock is a Thunderbolt 4 host port, which connects to your Mac and can provide 96 watts of power delivery. 

So there are four TB ports — one in front, three in back. 

Also, an HDMI port would be nice, but a TB to HDMI cable about the same price as an HDMI-HDMI cable. 

So you have one port that connects to the Mac. That leaves three that can be used for I/O. But without the hub, you have (minimum) 2 that you can use for I/O. Net gain: 1 port.

michelb76 said:

Not compatible with the Mac Studio? Also, how hot does this dock get? I find that Satechi products have very poor heat management.

Xed said:

waveparticle said:

Xed said:

waveparticle said:

Xed said:

dewme said:

red oak said:

A better way to analyze attach rates is using installed bases, not quarterly sales.  People buy iPhones and Watches on different timetables 

Using those metrics, the attach rate is approx: 

150 million Watches / 1.1 billion iPhones = 13.6% 

I don't know if one way of looking at attach rate is necessarily better than another. Both ways provide useful information but over different time windows. If you're actively doing something to try to boost attach rate, like modifying your marketing mix in some way (which includes product changes), looking at the delta in a smaller time window may give you more immediate feedback about the effectiveness of your campaign.

What strikes me as a bit counterintuitive with respect to the iPhone-Apple Watch attachment is that over the last few Apple Watch releases Apple has actually made the watch more autonomous and less reliant on the iPhone. That would seemingly result in a decrease or slower rate of growth in the attach rate. This may lend more credence to your interpretation of what is a better way of looking at the attach rate for this particular pair of products. 

My gut feeling here is that the Apple Watch has simply become a more attractive product on its own and the attach rate with iPhone has less to do with iPhone and more to do with Apple Watch itself. The iPhone is still obviously a halo product that buoys up a wide range of other Apple products, and yes, you still need an iPhone to setup and make best use of an Apple Watch, but I think the Apple Watch is largely improving its attractiveness based on its own merits. If the hard iPhone dependency went away the Apple Watch would probably still do quite well.

As far as I know the Watch still requires the owner to also own an iPhone. That means that all Watch owners also own iPhones. This can't even be setup using an iPad at this point, AFAICT. This means that Apple Watch to iPhone use is effectively an easy sales of one divided by the sales to the other, multiplied by 100. Only Apple would have a better ratio with iCloud account linking to be able to weed out people with multiple iPhones and Watches, or even weed out iPhones used as single-used devices by companies, for example, to get more accurate ratios.

I think this is due to iPad does not have GPS. 

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm not understanding how GPS would affect the ability to setup up an Apple Watch with a Watch app.

To setup Apple Watch you need a device that has both cellular and GPS. 

1) Why do you think this? Are you claiming that I can't disable cellular and use WiFi to setup an Apple Watch? What does GPS have to do with setting it up?

2) Assuming for a second that it needs Cellular+GPS, then why is this not possible on iPads that have those chips which is "a device that has both cellular and GPS."