Study finds iPhone 5 costs only 41 cents per year to charge, 3 cents more than iPhone 4
One of the standout features of Apple's new iPhone 5 is its long battery life which, despite cramming in a faster processor, LTE wireless capabilities and a larger screen, performs on par with its predecessors and has been found to cost only three cents more to charge per year.
A test from Opower (via CNET) found that it costs an estimated 41 cents per year to keep Apple's new iPhone 5 charged, a three cent bump from the legacy iPhone 4. Estimations were based on a once-a-day charging schedule.
Source: Opower
The numbers are to be expected as the iPhone 5's 3.8V, 5.45WH battery holds only slightly more juice than the 3.7V, 5.3Wh found in the iPhone 4S. In comparison to the third-generation iPad, however, the yearly cost to charge the new iPhone is less than one third the price.
One interesting statistic puts the electricity used by all 170 million iPhone 5s expected to be sold over the next 12 months as enough to power all the homes in Cedar Rapids, IA for one year.
Going further, the iPhone 5's yearly charge cost is 12 cents under the 53 cents it takes to charge the competing Samsung Galaxy S III smartphone. That device has a huge 2,100mAh battery, most likely needed to power the unit's massive 4.8-inch display.
"The paramount point here though is not the difference between the two phones," Opower writes, "but rather their striking similarity: the energy consumption of a modern smartphone is minuscule."
According to Opower, the use of smartphones and tablets as replacements for computers can contribute to drastic energy savings.
"Put simply, a day spent web-surfing and facebooking on a smartphone or tablet is a much more energy-efficient day than doing the same on a traditional computer."
A test from Opower (via CNET) found that it costs an estimated 41 cents per year to keep Apple's new iPhone 5 charged, a three cent bump from the legacy iPhone 4. Estimations were based on a once-a-day charging schedule.
Source: Opower
The numbers are to be expected as the iPhone 5's 3.8V, 5.45WH battery holds only slightly more juice than the 3.7V, 5.3Wh found in the iPhone 4S. In comparison to the third-generation iPad, however, the yearly cost to charge the new iPhone is less than one third the price.
One interesting statistic puts the electricity used by all 170 million iPhone 5s expected to be sold over the next 12 months as enough to power all the homes in Cedar Rapids, IA for one year.
Going further, the iPhone 5's yearly charge cost is 12 cents under the 53 cents it takes to charge the competing Samsung Galaxy S III smartphone. That device has a huge 2,100mAh battery, most likely needed to power the unit's massive 4.8-inch display.
"The paramount point here though is not the difference between the two phones," Opower writes, "but rather their striking similarity: the energy consumption of a modern smartphone is minuscule."
According to Opower, the use of smartphones and tablets as replacements for computers can contribute to drastic energy savings.
"Put simply, a day spent web-surfing and facebooking on a smartphone or tablet is a much more energy-efficient day than doing the same on a traditional computer."
Comments
The numbers are incorrect. They way they determined them was to find out how long it took to charge an iPhone and how much power it drew when being charged and multiplied. Using that calculation assumes:
1. You unplug the phone in the instant that it's fully charged.
2. The charger does not use any power after the phone is charged or after the phone is unplugged.
So unless you unplug the charger from the wall the instant the phone is charged, their numbers are too low.
Of course, it's not a big deal - even if the charger were running at full power constantly, it would only be a few dollars a year. But when you multiply the total by 100 M phones, the difference starts to become significant.
First the maps fiasco, now this! Millions of users were left disoriented because of the worthless maps app, and now you're telling me the iPhone 5 costs $.03, count 'em $.03 more to charge--per year!! I am outraged that Apple has gotten so big that they treat their customers like this! I used to love Apple products, but I can't support a company that is so environmentally irresponsible.
I still want Apple to release a mega powerful, Mac Pro, unlike anything ever seen before. To hell with the green people. Just make it so insanely powerful and don't worry about low power usage or any of that other environmental crap that certain crazy people talk about. The Mac Pro is not a device to carry around in your pocket. If somebody can afford a Mac Pro, they can also afford to pay for the electricity that a super powerful machine would use. I don't care if it's 24 core and uses 1000 watts.
Apple has been doing mighty fine in the mobile world lately, but I'd like to see them up the ante when it comes to their pro customers also, customers whose main priority is performance and power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
One of the standout features of Apple's new iPhone 5 is its long battery life which, despite cramming in a faster processor, LTE wireless capabilities and a larger screen, performs on par with its predecessors and has been found to cost only three cents more to charge per year.
A test from Opower (via CNET) found that it costs an estimated 41 cents per year to keep Apple's new iPhone 5 charged, a three cent bump from the legacy iPhone 4. Estimations were based on a once-a-day charging schedule."
The numbers are incorrect. They way they determined them was to find out how long it took to charge an iPhone and how much power it drew when being charged and multiplied. Using that calculation assumes:
1. You unplug the phone in the instant that it's fully charged.
2. The charger does not use any power after the phone is charged or after the phone is unplugged.
So unless you unplug the charger from the wall the instant the phone is charged, their numbers are too low.
Of course, it's not a big deal - even if the charger were running at full power constantly, it would only be a few dollars a year. But when you multiply the total by 100 M phones, the difference starts to become significant.
Additionally it appears to assume arbitrarily that the battery is completely discharged each day, so all they are really comparing is battery capacity.
"I am ranting. I don't like 2012 Apple. Don't be angry at me for flaming Apple. I have bought and used Apple (insert n numbers here) products since 1932 so your anger towards me is unjustified".
... proceed to go to bed for the night/
You forgot to mention that you own 27 Apple products and that Steve Jobs would never have allowed this.
True. If one phone has better battery life, it would only be discharged 50% in the course of a day's usage while a different phone might be completely discharged.
It measures battery capacity and charger efficiency when charging.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry
Additionally it appears to assume arbitrarily that the battery is completely discharged each day, so all they are really comparing is battery capacity.
True. If one phone has better battery life, it would only be discharged 50% in the course of a day's usage while a different phone might be completely discharged.
It measures battery capacity and charger efficiency when charging.
Yes - I assumed that they all had similar charging efficiency, but perhaps that's not true.
That is over a 12% increase in cost! How could Apple let this happen? /s
It is so negligible this article doesn't even matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
I still want Apple to release a mega powerful, Mac Pro, unlike anything ever seen before. To hell with the green people. Just make it so insanely powerful and don't worry about low power usage or any of that other environmental crap that certain crazy people talk about. The Mac Pro is not a device to carry around in your pocket. If somebody can afford a Mac Pro, they can also afford to pay for the electricity that a super powerful machine would use. I don't care if it's 24 core and uses 1000 watts.
Apple has been doing mighty fine in the mobile world lately, but I'd like to see them up the ante when it comes to their pro customers also, customers whose main priority is performance and power.
Instead of datacenter, Apple is building a power plant in NC to power only the new Mac Pros used by the US users (Tough luck Canada). Somehow they'll do it. It's Apple.
But the iPhone will not consume any additional power by being plugged in vs being on battery (I'm not an expert, but I'd believe its even more efficient to be plugged in).
For example, today I left my phone pluggedin till 10, and still have 52% battery life left.
So it doesn't really matter if your phone is on. 24/7.
I actually do unplug my charger 9 out of 10 days. But I imagine most people don't, so that is a very correct statement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimfrost
Call me crazy, but I thought the most interesting cost segment of the iPhone (and all of the other smartphones for that matter) was not the electricity, but the ~$1000/year in cellular charges. Compared to that, even running my G5 Quad 24x7 was cheap.
Compared to AT&T’s iPhone service contract, my car insurance is cheap!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
The numbers are incorrect. They way they determined them was to find out how long it took to charge an iPhone and how much power it drew when being charged and multiplied. Using that calculation assumes:
1. You unplug the phone in the instant that it's fully charged.
2. The charger does not use any power after the phone is charged or after the phone is unplugged.
So unless you unplug the charger from the wall the instant the phone is charged, their numbers are too low.
Of course, it's not a big deal - even if the charger were running at full power constantly, it would only be a few dollars a year. But when you multiply the total by 100 M phones, the difference starts to become significant.
I agree, their numbers are certainly incorrect because the study is overly simplistic. A couple extra things:
1) Recent Apple designed AC chargers draw almost no current unless they're actively charging a device—unplugging them is not necessary. (But most other wall-wart style chargers, including my toothbrush charger draw close to full power all the time.)
2) The electricity actually used by phones (and portable devices in general) has no impact on anyone, or the world. Anyone wishing to save electricity should dry their clothes on a line!
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdyB
I wonder how this compares cost wise to induction charging!
Inductive charging wastes a much larger percentage of the charging current than a direct connection. Inductive only charging (no plug option) would make it impossible to charge your iPhone from a small solar cell, crank charger, or small battery pack. I have a solar/crank LED camping lantern which charges my iPhone 4 very well (albeit slowly). Inductive only charging would waste enough power to prevent these solutions from working.
Inductive only charging would not work from a computer USB port either. Computer USB ports output just barely enough wattage to charge well with a direct connection.
The phone won't consume any additional power when it's plugged in compared to being on battery, but the charger is not 100% efficient and draws power even when not actively charging. Although the Apple charger is more efficient than most, it still draws some power.
The article assumes that you fully charge the phone and then unplug both the phone and charger, then discharge the phone 100%. That will draw more power than either leaving the phone plugged in all the time or unplugging the phone and leaving the charger in the wall jack (which is what most people do).
Originally Posted by AdyB
I wonder how this compares cost wise to induction charging!
Much cheaper.