Well, these batteries and their required charger are very different to what is being used now. How will Apple convince the stupid EU that they need their own charger to recharge the phones and iPod Touches that have these new, higher power, longer lasting batteries? Can they?
Where are you getting this? There is no mention in the article of a different charger requirement and the article didn't bother to provide us with a link to the actual patent. If this is just a matter of different algorithms and possibly a new material, why would it require a different charger? It will still plug into the same power outlets, so any changes can be entirely internal.
You would think there time and money could be better spent elsewhere right now... the current MBP already last 8 hours or so..
Personally, I'd like to not have to charge my iPhone every day. Be nice if I could charge it only once every couple days or once a week with even heavy usage. I agree that the MBP has great battery life, at least as advertised since I don't have one, but I think this has much more immediate benefits for the iPhone and iPad products.
I think eventually Apple will be facing off against the patents and innovations already owned by automotive companies, not just battery companies. Keep pushing, Apple! We'll be driving Apple iCars yet!
Not a chance. If Apple makes it that far, the iCar will be driving us. The steering wheel will be just another option on the iCar.
You would think there time and money could be better spent elsewhere right now... the current MBP already last 8 hours or so..
More is always better. Anyway, what do you expect? You want them to fire their battery engineers so they can spend money on a user interface engineer or something...
You would think there time and money could be better spent elsewhere right now... the current MBP already last 8 hours or so..
Mobile components are advancing faster than battery tech. We're starting to see dual and even quad core SoC designs, higher density displays, higher bandwidth radios, feature laden operating systems, etc... These things are power hungry. If you don't concentrate on the power source, you'll be stuck with devices that have impractical usage limitations.
It would seem to me that all the new devices coming out, bragging about all the new tech and high end specs are being irresponsible and in denial when comes to power usage.
Apple has spent years, not only in working on creating better batteries, but also in designing a highly efficient operating system that makes the most out of any and all available hardware.
Apple has been working on battery tech for a while now. They were so proud of their achievements that they dedicated a whole segment to discussing battery tech when the first unibody Macs were introduced two years ago.
Mobile components are advancing faster than battery tech. We're starting to see dual and even quad core SoC designs, higher density displays, higher bandwidth radios, feature laden operating systems, etc... These things are power hungry. If you don't concentrate on the power source, you'll be stuck with devices that have impractical usage limitations.
It would seem to me that all the new devices coming out, bragging about all the new tech and high end specs are being irresponsible and in denial when comes to power usage.
Apple has spent years, not only in working on creating better batteries, but also in designing a highly efficient operating system that makes the most out of any and all available hardware.
Well said. Modern mobile devices involve an intricate system of tradeoffs among battery life, size, weight, performance and cost. Apple seems to be the most focused, of all the manufacturers of such devices, on keeping each of these factors in balance in order to deliver the most satisfying user experience. Not just satisfying at the point of sale because the specs go to 11, but satisfying after owning and using the device for a period of time.
I would say that that's because Apple isn't obliged to compete with cookie cutter hardware and someone else's OS in a market where the sole point of differentiation is going to be a few numbers on a bullet list. Another fraction of an inch of screen size, a few more Hz of CPU, more RAM, another port, etc. etc. might get you a little buzz on the tech sites, but it necessarily impacts every other aspect of the device. Of course, this opens Apple to accusations of being behind the curve, or "getting their ass kicked" by the latest and greatest device du jour, but Apple has created a market for themselves where they can concentrate on something other than naked spec whoring, to the betterment of their customers.
mobile components are advancing faster than battery tech. We're starting to see dual and even quad core soc designs, higher density displays, higher bandwidth radios, feature laden operating systems, etc... These things are power hungry. If you don't concentrate on the power source, you'll be stuck with devices that have impractical usage limitations.
It would seem to me that all the new devices coming out, bragging about all the new tech and high end specs are being irresponsible and in denial when comes to power usage.
Apple has spent years, not only in working on creating better batteries, but also in designing a highly efficient operating system that makes the most out of any and all available hardware.
The topic at hand reminds me of a post over at Aysmco, regarding profits and the ability to innovate. The idea is that the smart phone business is still in its early days, with lots of room for improvements that consumers are willing to pay for. It's only when a product gets as good as it reasonably needs to be that true commodification sets in, at which point what profit as is available goes to whoever can cuts costs the most.
But until then, being able to do basic research and development with your platform which results in real improvement adds value to your product. The question Asymco asked was "where is the money for that basic R&D for Android vendors going to come from ?"
We have Apple, with it's famously high margins and deep pockets, willing and able to spend a lot on making the iOS platform as good as it can be. And we have Android manufacturers obliged to "innovate" on top of their OS with widgets and the like, and being obliged to sell their wares for as little as possible in a crowded, price sensitive market.
For the time being, as smart phone uptake is still growing rapidly, just bumping specs will continue to fuel demand. But at some point your potential market will become jaded. They'll have gone through several generations of fancy home screens with lots of eye candy, and they'll be looking for real utility.
It will be interesting to see what happens then, if Apple can continue to use its profits to bring genuinely superior products at extremely competitive prices to market. What if Apple has battery life that tops the nearest competition by 50%? 100%? It's not out of the question, Apple is clearly willing to spend more than anyone else in chipping away at those battery minutes-- bringing actual battery chemistry in-house, further refining hardware and software efficiencies, endlessly working the problem
Android licensees simply aren't in a position to do that. They can purchase the latest battery tech, and hope Google keeps things efficient, but they have no real incentive to invest heavily in eking out a few more minutes than the next guy-- not when it's so much easier to act as if a dual core processor makes you the captain of a starship.
And battery life is just one area. Apple is going to keep spending to increase the desirability of their iOS products. The Android manufacturers are going to keep dropping in whatever Google gives them, and whatever parts the industry provides, with "innovation" being increasingly limited to Atrix style gimmickry, widgets, and brief windows of spec list superiority.
Now maybe that's all most people really want, but I don't think this story is well told by focusing on current market share numbers. Apple is still going to be pouring money into iOS when Android is entirely commodified. I think that's when it gets interesting-- after all, just look at what's happening with Apple notebooks sales numbers.
I had a Macbook Pro with a battery designed and built by a battery producer. The battery failed in a few months, was replaced, and failed again. First battery swelled up, splitting open and nearly catching on fire. Second battery was down to 50% life after 30 charge cycles, however I wasn't using it enough and was in the middle of a major depression and failed to get it replaced under warranty. Frankly because my laptop sits in its case for weeks on end, I ought to just sell the whole piece of crap for an iPad.
Where are you getting this? There is no mention in the article of a different charger requirement and the article didn't bother to provide us with a link to the actual patent. If this is just a matter of different algorithms and possibly a new material, why would it require a different charger? It will still plug into the same power outlets, so any changes can be entirely internal.
The article was quite clear on that. Read it again. From the bottom of the article.
Quote:
But one issue with employing the multi-step CC-CV charging technique is battery life can be significantly decreased depending on temperature. For example, using the same current-charge density at 10 degrees celsius will lower the cycle life "substantially" when compared to a higher temperature such as 45 degrees.
In addition, current-charge densities further reduce the battery's cycle life if it is at a higher state of charge, between 70 percent and 100 percent.
Apple's solution would reduce the charge currents for a mobile device when its battery is at a higher state of charge, or a lower temperature. This would avoid degradation in the cycle life of the battery, and potentially even increase it, without any required change in battery chemistry.
The multi-step charging technique would be compatible with the new battery design and would increase battery life by dynamically adjusting the rate of charge when the battery is at different states of charge, or different temperatures.
Apple's proposed invention revealed this week was first filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on Aug. 22, 2009. It is credited to Ramesh C. Bhardwaj and Taisup Hwang.
Notice the mention of a patent? We don't need the actual link. The article tells us what it does.
Patents can be given for modification of existing devices if it brings unique advantages. This would do that. It wouldn't be compatible with other batteries, and the battery wouldn't compatible with different chargers.
Apple has been working on battery tech for a while now. They were so proud of their achievements that they dedicated a whole segment to discussing battery tech when the first unibody Macs were introduced two years ago.
And to previous poster (EU USB charger rules), the charging system is controlled onboard the device, not the charger.
This patent is from 2009. Have you thought about the fact that this patent relates to those batteries? And the charger is different from what we see in phone chargers. What you linked to in Apple's site is for a computer, not a phone.
The charger and battery form a system. One requires the other. Neither can work with a different part.
This patent is from 2009. Have you thought about the fact that this patent relates to those batteries? And the charger is different from what we see in phone chargers. What you linked to in Apple's site is for a computer, not a phone.
The charger and battery form a system. One requires the other. Neither can work with a different part.
That's factually incorrect. There are no compatibility issues with using even a first-gen MagSafe charger from a prior generation MacBook to charge current MacBooks provided you have chosen one with the proper wattage rating. The new "smart" battery system on the current unibody systems is independent of the charger. Oh and BTW, unibody was introduced in 2009 around the time of this patent.
Likewise, the technology is non-exclusive to laptops. Any device with sufficient space can implement the same whether it's an iPhone or iPad or something else. Lastly, you can use a first-gen iPhone's charger to charge an iPhone 4. In fact, many old iPod chargers pre-2007 are also capable of charging it. This again disproved your assertion that the battery and charger must form a system. Again, charging is controlled by the onboard chip, not the charger that is plugged into the wall.
Comments
Well, these batteries and their required charger are very different to what is being used now. How will Apple convince the stupid EU that they need their own charger to recharge the phones and iPod Touches that have these new, higher power, longer lasting batteries? Can they?
Where are you getting this? There is no mention in the article of a different charger requirement and the article didn't bother to provide us with a link to the actual patent. If this is just a matter of different algorithms and possibly a new material, why would it require a different charger? It will still plug into the same power outlets, so any changes can be entirely internal.
You would think there time and money could be better spent elsewhere right now... the current MBP already last 8 hours or so..
Personally, I'd like to not have to charge my iPhone every day. Be nice if I could charge it only once every couple days or once a week with even heavy usage. I agree that the MBP has great battery life, at least as advertised since I don't have one, but I think this has much more immediate benefits for the iPhone and iPad products.
I think eventually Apple will be facing off against the patents and innovations already owned by automotive companies, not just battery companies. Keep pushing, Apple! We'll be driving Apple iCars yet!
Not a chance. If Apple makes it that far, the iCar will be driving us. The steering wheel will be just another option on the iCar.
You would think there time and money could be better spent elsewhere right now... the current MBP already last 8 hours or so..
More is always better. Anyway, what do you expect? You want them to fire their battery engineers so they can spend money on a user interface engineer or something...
You would think there time and money could be better spent elsewhere right now... the current MBP already last 8 hours or so..
Mobile components are advancing faster than battery tech. We're starting to see dual and even quad core SoC designs, higher density displays, higher bandwidth radios, feature laden operating systems, etc... These things are power hungry. If you don't concentrate on the power source, you'll be stuck with devices that have impractical usage limitations.
It would seem to me that all the new devices coming out, bragging about all the new tech and high end specs are being irresponsible and in denial when comes to power usage.
Apple has spent years, not only in working on creating better batteries, but also in designing a highly efficient operating system that makes the most out of any and all available hardware.
I just don't see how this new patent is different from what's already implemented on the unibody MBP. http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/battery/
And to previous poster (EU USB charger rules), the charging system is controlled onboard the device, not the charger.
Mobile components are advancing faster than battery tech. We're starting to see dual and even quad core SoC designs, higher density displays, higher bandwidth radios, feature laden operating systems, etc... These things are power hungry. If you don't concentrate on the power source, you'll be stuck with devices that have impractical usage limitations.
It would seem to me that all the new devices coming out, bragging about all the new tech and high end specs are being irresponsible and in denial when comes to power usage.
Apple has spent years, not only in working on creating better batteries, but also in designing a highly efficient operating system that makes the most out of any and all available hardware.
Well said. Modern mobile devices involve an intricate system of tradeoffs among battery life, size, weight, performance and cost. Apple seems to be the most focused, of all the manufacturers of such devices, on keeping each of these factors in balance in order to deliver the most satisfying user experience. Not just satisfying at the point of sale because the specs go to 11, but satisfying after owning and using the device for a period of time.
I would say that that's because Apple isn't obliged to compete with cookie cutter hardware and someone else's OS in a market where the sole point of differentiation is going to be a few numbers on a bullet list. Another fraction of an inch of screen size, a few more Hz of CPU, more RAM, another port, etc. etc. might get you a little buzz on the tech sites, but it necessarily impacts every other aspect of the device. Of course, this opens Apple to accusations of being behind the curve, or "getting their ass kicked" by the latest and greatest device du jour, but Apple has created a market for themselves where they can concentrate on something other than naked spec whoring, to the betterment of their customers.
mobile components are advancing faster than battery tech. We're starting to see dual and even quad core soc designs, higher density displays, higher bandwidth radios, feature laden operating systems, etc... These things are power hungry. If you don't concentrate on the power source, you'll be stuck with devices that have impractical usage limitations.
It would seem to me that all the new devices coming out, bragging about all the new tech and high end specs are being irresponsible and in denial when comes to power usage.
Apple has spent years, not only in working on creating better batteries, but also in designing a highly efficient operating system that makes the most out of any and all available hardware.
dense makes for more weight
And that ^, everyone, is how a robot without any sense of humour responds to a sarcastic joke.
And that ^, everyone, is what someone whose sense of humor is derived from Jokes and Their Relation to The Unconscious thinks is funny.
But until then, being able to do basic research and development with your platform which results in real improvement adds value to your product. The question Asymco asked was "where is the money for that basic R&D for Android vendors going to come from ?"
We have Apple, with it's famously high margins and deep pockets, willing and able to spend a lot on making the iOS platform as good as it can be. And we have Android manufacturers obliged to "innovate" on top of their OS with widgets and the like, and being obliged to sell their wares for as little as possible in a crowded, price sensitive market.
For the time being, as smart phone uptake is still growing rapidly, just bumping specs will continue to fuel demand. But at some point your potential market will become jaded. They'll have gone through several generations of fancy home screens with lots of eye candy, and they'll be looking for real utility.
It will be interesting to see what happens then, if Apple can continue to use its profits to bring genuinely superior products at extremely competitive prices to market. What if Apple has battery life that tops the nearest competition by 50%? 100%? It's not out of the question, Apple is clearly willing to spend more than anyone else in chipping away at those battery minutes-- bringing actual battery chemistry in-house, further refining hardware and software efficiencies, endlessly working the problem
Android licensees simply aren't in a position to do that. They can purchase the latest battery tech, and hope Google keeps things efficient, but they have no real incentive to invest heavily in eking out a few more minutes than the next guy-- not when it's so much easier to act as if a dual core processor makes you the captain of a starship.
And battery life is just one area. Apple is going to keep spending to increase the desirability of their iOS products. The Android manufacturers are going to keep dropping in whatever Google gives them, and whatever parts the industry provides, with "innovation" being increasingly limited to Atrix style gimmickry, widgets, and brief windows of spec list superiority.
Now maybe that's all most people really want, but I don't think this story is well told by focusing on current market share numbers. Apple is still going to be pouring money into iOS when Android is entirely commodified. I think that's when it gets interesting-- after all, just look at what's happening with Apple notebooks sales numbers.
With billion to spend I'd have to disagree, until battery life is >1week
Wait for me to invent them.. Putting my idea hat on...now, let me see..this go here...
I had a Macbook Pro with a battery designed and built by a battery producer. The battery failed in a few months, was replaced, and failed again. First battery swelled up, splitting open and nearly catching on fire. Second battery was down to 50% life after 30 charge cycles, however I wasn't using it enough and was in the middle of a major depression and failed to get it replaced under warranty. Frankly because my laptop sits in its case for weeks on end, I ought to just sell the whole piece of crap for an iPad.
And your point is????????
Where are you getting this? There is no mention in the article of a different charger requirement and the article didn't bother to provide us with a link to the actual patent. If this is just a matter of different algorithms and possibly a new material, why would it require a different charger? It will still plug into the same power outlets, so any changes can be entirely internal.
The article was quite clear on that. Read it again. From the bottom of the article.
But one issue with employing the multi-step CC-CV charging technique is battery life can be significantly decreased depending on temperature. For example, using the same current-charge density at 10 degrees celsius will lower the cycle life "substantially" when compared to a higher temperature such as 45 degrees.
In addition, current-charge densities further reduce the battery's cycle life if it is at a higher state of charge, between 70 percent and 100 percent.
Apple's solution would reduce the charge currents for a mobile device when its battery is at a higher state of charge, or a lower temperature. This would avoid degradation in the cycle life of the battery, and potentially even increase it, without any required change in battery chemistry.
The multi-step charging technique would be compatible with the new battery design and would increase battery life by dynamically adjusting the rate of charge when the battery is at different states of charge, or different temperatures.
Apple's proposed invention revealed this week was first filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on Aug. 22, 2009. It is credited to Ramesh C. Bhardwaj and Taisup Hwang.
Notice the mention of a patent? We don't need the actual link. The article tells us what it does.
Patents can be given for modification of existing devices if it brings unique advantages. This would do that. It wouldn't be compatible with other batteries, and the battery wouldn't compatible with different chargers.
Apple has been working on battery tech for a while now. They were so proud of their achievements that they dedicated a whole segment to discussing battery tech when the first unibody Macs were introduced two years ago.
I just don't see how this new patent is different from what's already implemented on the unibody MBP. http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/battery/
And to previous poster (EU USB charger rules), the charging system is controlled onboard the device, not the charger.
This patent is from 2009. Have you thought about the fact that this patent relates to those batteries? And the charger is different from what we see in phone chargers. What you linked to in Apple's site is for a computer, not a phone.
The charger and battery form a system. One requires the other. Neither can work with a different part.
Couldn't this be the technology that Apple already adopted with 'smart batteries' when they rolled out the unibody MacBook Pros?
Yes, it does look that way.
This patent is from 2009. Have you thought about the fact that this patent relates to those batteries? And the charger is different from what we see in phone chargers. What you linked to in Apple's site is for a computer, not a phone.
The charger and battery form a system. One requires the other. Neither can work with a different part.
That's factually incorrect. There are no compatibility issues with using even a first-gen MagSafe charger from a prior generation MacBook to charge current MacBooks provided you have chosen one with the proper wattage rating. The new "smart" battery system on the current unibody systems is independent of the charger. Oh and BTW, unibody was introduced in 2009 around the time of this patent.
Likewise, the technology is non-exclusive to laptops. Any device with sufficient space can implement the same whether it's an iPhone or iPad or something else. Lastly, you can use a first-gen iPhone's charger to charge an iPhone 4. In fact, many old iPod chargers pre-2007 are also capable of charging it. This again disproved your assertion that the battery and charger must form a system. Again, charging is controlled by the onboard chip, not the charger that is plugged into the wall.