Can you define what you mean by "actually functional ports"? Are you referring to the removal of a Thunderbolt port, and the addition of a HDMI 2.0 port and SDXC slot?
Assuming yes (I'm not sure what else you would be referring to that is a 'recent example'), can you explain to me how you consider a port that can connect to practically any peripheral you can imagine at speeds unmatched by any contemporary alternatives, not to be "functional", while you also consider a single-use video port, and a single-use card reader port, both using versions from close to a decade ago, to be "functional"?
To be clear, its your choice of wording that I'm questioning here.
If you'd said convenient, or more accurately convenient for some/many, I'd still disagree that the benefit of the convenience is worth the cost of losing flexibility, but I'd agree that the port(s) do offer more convenience for some people/workflows.
But you didn't say that, you said "functional".
I currently use all four TB3 ports on either a 2018 Mac Mini or 2018 MBP15, (without using one dedicated to power); I already run two 4K displays from a single TB3 port (either via the eGPU on the mini, or via a DualDP adapter on the MBP). Only one TB3 device I use is daisy-chainable (i.e. has a downstream TB3 port), and it is already daisy-chained to something else.
So if I were to update my portable/spare machine to a 'current' model, yes I'd get a nice CPU/GPU perf boost, and the option for a lot more memory, which is great. But I literally don't have enough ports any more, and suddenly I have two ports that are not usable, for me.
I wouldn't quite call them "non functional" because they do function, I just dont have a use for that function, and because they're single-use ports (and OLD single use ports at that) they're not adaptable to anything I do need to use.
Assuming yes (I'm not sure what else you would be referring to that is a 'recent example'), can you explain to me how you consider a port that can connect to practically any peripheral you can imagine at speeds unmatched by any contemporary alternatives, not to be "functional", while you also consider a single-use video port, and a single-use card reader port, both using versions from close to a decade ago, to be "functional"?
To be clear, its your choice of wording that I'm questioning here.
If you'd said convenient, or more accurately convenient for some/many, I'd still disagree that the benefit of the convenience is worth the cost of losing flexibility, but I'd agree that the port(s) do offer more convenience for some people/workflows.
But you didn't say that, you said "functional".
I currently use all four TB3 ports on either a 2018 Mac Mini or 2018 MBP15, (without using one dedicated to power); I already run two 4K displays from a single TB3 port (either via the eGPU on the mini, or via a DualDP adapter on the MBP). Only one TB3 device I use is daisy-chainable (i.e. has a downstream TB3 port), and it is already daisy-chained to something else.
So if I were to update my portable/spare machine to a 'current' model, yes I'd get a nice CPU/GPU perf boost, and the option for a lot more memory, which is great. But I literally don't have enough ports any more, and suddenly I have two ports that are not usable, for me.
I wouldn't quite call them "non functional" because they do function, I just dont have a use for that function, and because they're single-use ports (and OLD single use ports at that) they're not adaptable to anything I do need to use.