Review: Apple Smart Battery Case for iPhone 6 & 6s

1235

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 102
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,033member
    AppleInsider reported Lightning license fees are $4 per unit.

    So both male and female would be $8 per unit.

    While that is, in fact, double... I still think it's a worthwhile investment.

    Like I said... they could cover that by charging more for Lightning-only battery cases. And it would be so much better for the consumer.
    If I were running Apple I'd have a single charge cover both a male and female interface, specifically to allow more 3rd-party OEMs to allow the standard Lightning cables to be  used with such accessories. This also has the benefit of making Apple's product be even more seamless and reduce having to ship that extra micro-USB cable, which helps reduce clutter and waste.
  • Reply 82 of 102
    atlapple said:
    kpluck said:
    Gruber, Rene Ritchie and Jim Dalrymple get it. And since there are third-party options, which are even sold Apple stores, what's there to complain about. Buy something else if you don't like this option.
    Exactly! How dare AppleInsider review the product and give their opinion.

    -kpluck 

    Shouldn't a product reviewer have a duty to enlighten the reader as to the details and advantages of said product, or is it merely the expression of an opinion?

    Your "how dare they give their opinion" sentiment is merely a defense of the political correctness of having opinions. My guess is that you are motivated to do so because this particular opinion confirms your biases. Well, product reviews (particularly if there's compensation involved) are held to higher standards than editorials. They'd better be able to explain the pros and cons of the product beyond taking a few photos, repeating the specs, and then writing about their confusion about Apple's design decisions. You should demand more from the writers, not praise their lack of effort. Otherwise, they would do you and all other readers a disservice.
    It's somewhat comical you calling someone else bias. It must be tiresome posting in a thread like this trying to defend a product that looks this bad. Apple's obsession with making products thin just to make a battery case like this adding that much bulk to the phone is pathetic. 

    What we should be asking ourselves is how does Cook think he can get way with taking a battery slapping some silicone around it and asking people to buy it.  

    But,but but but, it's made by apple so by default it's awesome. 


    But but but where did I say it was awesome by default because Apple made it?
    You still don't get it, do you? I'm not reviewing the product. I'm reviewing this review. I want higher standards when it comes to products reviews, not a hasty editorial. And I pointed out that the only reason the haters are embracing the review is because it confirms their biases. Admit it.

    That you misinterpret my criticism of the review as some kind of defense of the product and by extension, Apple, is what's comical. 
    nolamacguy
  • Reply 83 of 102
    cnocbui said:
    Soli said:
    cnocbui said:
    It would be very interesting to conduct a poll on how many people would like a thinner iPhone vs one the same or 1mm thicker with much better battery life. I suspect the latter would be the most popular option. Damn, that thing is ugly.
    You'd think, but I have to trust the OEMs that constantly market the thickness and weight. Even this year, with the iPhone 6S, people complained that it got thicker and heavier, even though it did so to add to HW and didn't change by very much.
    In psychology it is called "false consensus". Wikipedia defines it as:

    In psychology, the false-consensus effect or false-consensus bias is a cognitive bias whereby a person tends to overestimate the extent to which their beliefs or opinions are typical of those of others.

    it reinforces ones own self-esteem to think that, so expressions of false consensus are stubbornly held. The believer has an emotional stake in believing it to be true.
    That's funny, I thought it was more in line with the scientific method, where you have a hypothesis and then test it. You know, the bit where I said I think A is the case so it would be interesting to conduct a poll to see whether proposition A has any validity.

    I have seen a few posters on AI say they would not like the iPhone to get any thinner, but would prefer greater battery life.  Would you like references?
    What would your "references" prove?
    You've presenting a false dichotomy to begin with. Give them option C: longer battery life, more performance, more features, and less weight. Because that's what Apple has been doing in every generation of iPhone. And Apple sells more of these every generation. So what if you cherry picked a few "references"? Apple's got sales data that says keep doing what they're doing.
  • Reply 84 of 102
    tofino said:
    Use of the lightning cable is reason enough for me to consider this case over any other. How much can third party case makers really save to use that dreadful micro usb connector?
    It would be double the licensing fee. They're already paying the fee for the male part, and would have to pay again to include female part. 
    You'd think at least one of those 3rd-party battery case manufacturers would just pony up and pay both licensing fees.

    iPhone owners already have Lightning cables.  Why would a company make the customer suffer with MicroUSB cables just to save a few dollars?

    If there was one 3rd-party battery case with Lightning versus a dozen with MicroUSB... I'd definitely pick the one with Lightning.  I'd even pay more for a battery case with Lightning. (thus offsetting the extra cost of license fees for both Lightning connectors)

    I think these companies put more emphasis on their own budgeting rather than on the ease of having one cable.

    Oh well... their loss is Apple's gain.  I can imagine more of Apple's Smart Battery Cases being sold strictly on the fact that you don't need any additional cables. Simple is good.
     Do we know how much those fees are? It could very well be that the fee for the female part is much higher. There has to be a reason why they don't include it in their cases. 
    AppleInsider reported Lightning license fees are $4 per unit.

    So both male and female would be $8 per unit.

    While that is, in fact, double... I still think it's a worthwhile investment.

    Like I said... they could cover that by charging more for Lightning-only battery cases. And it would be so much better for the consumer.
    Doing some research I just found out that Apple only allows one license so case makers are prohibited from including a female port. 
  • Reply 85 of 102
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,033member
    Doing some research I just found out that Apple only allows one license so case makers are prohibited from including a female port. 
    If that's the case, then I think Apple is being shortsighted.
  • Reply 86 of 102
    Doing some research I just found out that Apple only allows one license so case makers are prohibited from including a female port. 
    Well that's odd.

    Maybe that was Apple's plan all along... they'd provide the "good" case with female Lightning port... while everyone else must use the crappy MicroUSB port.
  • Reply 87 of 102
    Soli said:
    Doing some research I just found out that Apple only allows one license so case makers are prohibited from including a female port. 
    If that's the case, then I think Apple is being shortsighted.
    I'd include the links but this new version makes it virtually impossible for me to do so. 
  • Reply 88 of 102
    kpluck said:
    Gruber, Rene Ritchie and Jim Dalrymple get it. And since there are third-party options, which are even sold Apple stores, what's there to complain about. Buy something else if you don't like this option.
    Exactly! How dare AppleInsider review the product and give their opinion.

    -kpluck 
    that's not the problem. the problem is their opinion should be based off of technical comprehension and understanding. it isn't. it's no different than the guy down the street, which is absurd since this org is supposed to be technical. thus they did their readership a disservice. 

    also, you don't need to sign your posts -- we see your name on the header. 
    edited December 2015
  • Reply 89 of 102
    atlapple said:
    It's somewhat comical you calling someone else bias. It must be tiresome posting in a thread like this trying to defend a product that looks this bad. Apple's obsession with making products thin just to make a battery case like this adding that much bulk to the phone is pathetic. 

    What we should be asking ourselves is how does Cook think he can get way with taking a battery slapping some silicone around it and asking people to buy it.  

    But,but but but, it's made by apple so by default it's awesome. 

    your expected troll trope is nonsense, as usual. today's iPhone gets better battery life than the first iPhones, despite getting thinner. so your point is entirely bogus and nonsense. 
  • Reply 90 of 102
    Boy this thread took a weird turn.

    People need to lighten up.

    Its just a review of just a battery case. Of which there are likely hundreds.

    Buy the Apple battery case if you like it. Don't like it? Then don't buy it.

    If you like the review or the battery case, fair enough. If you don't like the review or the battery case, fair enough.

    Either way it's probably time to move on.

    Good grief.
  • Reply 91 of 102
    atlapple said:
    It's somewhat comical you calling someone else bias. It must be tiresome posting in a thread like this trying to defend a product that looks this bad. Apple's obsession with making products thin just to make a battery case like this adding that much bulk to the phone is pathetic. 

    What we should be asking ourselves is how does Cook think he can get way with taking a battery slapping some silicone around it and asking people to buy it.  

    But,but but but, it's made by apple so by default it's awesome. 

    your expected troll trope is nonsense, as usual. today's iPhone gets better battery life than the first iPhones, despite getting thinner. so your point is entirely bogus and nonsense. 
    Not sure if you noticed but the phones also got bigger. Also learn to read I never made a comment about the 6 or 6s having poor battery life. The troll nonsense is old you whiners sound like a bunch of little school girls. Grow up already. Just because people don't buy into every Apple device is awesome doesn't make them a troll, however you always using term makes you an idiot. 
  • Reply 92 of 102
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    Doing some research I just found out that Apple only allows one license so case makers are prohibited from including a female port. 
    Well that's odd.

    Maybe that was Apple's plan all along... they'd provide the "good" case with female Lightning port... while everyone else must use the crappy MicroUSB port.
    I have trouble believing Apple won't allow third parties to create a device with a female Lightning port, something essential to allow a charge pass through with an attached accessory. Though I must admit I'm hard pressed to recall a mifi device that has one. 

    That said, I posted earlier in this thread a somewhat conspiratorial post about the reason for the micro USB and it's this -- at the time Mophie started the micro USB cable was standard, far easier to find than an Apple charging cable. They are cheap and can be picked up at any drug store, for far less than the cost of a Custom Apple cord, which are mainly available at specialty stores. Apple makes a Lightning to micro USB adapter for one reason -- the EU made it, because they have laws requiring electronic devices be able to use standard charging connectors. That says all we need to know about Mophie and the others. Add to that Apple has changed their charging connector once already in the 7 years since the iPhone was released. That makes using a ubiquitous connector like the micro-USB much more attractive, which is why it's a government mandate in the EU, and for anyone who remembers the endless proprietary charging cables offered by mobile phone makers during the 1990s and 2000s.

    And consider this, anybody using a Mophie is not likely to plug a Lightning connector into their iPhone very often, relying on wireless to back up and sync their iPhones. These big cases couldn't fit on Apple's docks until recently anyway. So using cheaper, more widely available USB-C cables made much more sense. And this cuts into Apple's Eco-system. iPhone users don't need to buy Apple accessories for their mobile life with a Mophie. The iPad comes with a charging cable and tends to stay at home -- not a lot of extra purchases there. But the iPhone needs cables for home, car, office, travel, etc. not to mention any docks for a Mophie pack which cuts Apple out of a connector license.

    Now Apple is pushing the Lightning connector on all of their products. Suddenly having a Lightning cable is important, and Apple wants to reclaim that market on their underpowered iPhones. Interesting to note their case requires an adapter to use anything but Apple issued earbuds. That sort of signals just how important Lightning is going to become for Apple over the next year in my opinion. Customers are going to need to plug in more than just a charging cable.
    edited December 2015
  • Reply 93 of 102
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    mac_128 said:
    Doing some research I t just found out that Apple only allows one license so case makers are prohibited from including a female port. 
    Well that's odd.

    Maybe that was Apple's plan all along... they'd provide the "good" case with female Lightning port... while everyone else must use the crappy MicroUSB port.
    I have trouble believing Apple won't allow third parties to create a device with a female Lightning port, something essential to allow a charge pass through with an attached accessory. Though I must admit I'm hard pressed to recall a mifi device that has one. 

    That said, I posted earlier in this thread a somewhat conspiratorial post about the reason for the micro USB and it's this -- at the time Mophie started the micro USB cable was standard, far easier to find than an Apple charging cable. They are cheap and can be picked up at any drug store, for far less than the cost of a Custom Apple cord, which are mainly available at specialty stores. Apple makes a Lightning to micro USB adapter for one reason -- the EU made it, because they have laws requiring electronic devices be able to use standard charging connectors. That says all we need to know about Mophie and the others. Add to that Apple has changed their charging connector once already in the 7 years since the iPhone was released. That makes using a ubiquitous connector like the micro-USB much more attractive, which is why it's a government mandate in the EU, and for anyone who remembers the endless proprietary charging cables offered by mobile phone makers during the 1990s and 2000s.

    And consider this, anybody using a Mophie is not likely to plug a Lightning connector into their iPhone very often, relying on wireless to back up and sync their iPhones. These big cases couldn't fit on Apple's docks until recently anyway. So using cheaper, more widely available USB-C cables made much more sense. And this cuts into Apple's Eco-system. iPhone users don't need to buy Apple accessories for their mobile life with a Mophie. The iPad comes with a charging cable and tends to stay at home -- not a lot of extra purchases there. But the iPhone needs cables for home, car, office, travel, etc. not to mention any docks for a Mophie pack which cuts Apple out of a connector license.

    Now Apple is pushing the Lightning connector on all of their products. Suddenly having a Lightning cable is important, and Apple wants to reclaim that market on their underpowered iPhones. Interesting to note their case requires an adapter to use anything but Apple issued earbuds. That sort of signals just how important Lightning is going to become for Apple over the next year in my opinion. Customers are going to need to plug in more than just a charging cable.
    I went onto several different sites and they all report to same thing, Apple allows only one license per accessory, so if a 3rd party  product has a male lightning connector they cannot get an additional license to include the female one. 
  • Reply 94 of 102
    Well done, first media outlet to mention it not having a switch to turn the case off, I don't know who wants their phone hot and charging all the time.

    Ah well now you're starting to figure out what this case is all about.  It's supposed to extend your iPhone's battery life without you having to change your behavior at all.  Charge the phone like you normally do with the case on and eureka...all of a sudden you have a full day's charge.
  • Reply 95 of 102
    To the people who are complaining about the $99 price of the case...have none of you owned a Apple product before?  If not here's some news for you...APPLE PRODUCTS ARE EXPENSIVE!  If you want to own an Apple product, be prepared to pay more!  

    It's nothing but sheer insanity that people still complain about the price of Apple products, especially when you're free to go buy the myriad of cheaper alternatives.
    edited December 2015
  • Reply 96 of 102
    I would like one with a solar back.  That way I can take it camping and recharge the external battery in the sun and then charge the phone at night.
  • Reply 97 of 102
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member

    I went onto several different sites and they all report to same thing, Apple allows only one license per accessory, so if a 3rd party  product has a male lightning connector they cannot get an additional license to include the female one. 
    Well if that's in fact true and an impossible restriction to get around with Apple, it's absolutely puzzling, and borders on monopolistic practices.

    It also explains the lack of third party mifi video dongles, and other devices which would otherwise benefit from a pass through charging port. 

    I wonder if that will change now? Otherwise, who can compete with Apple's own offering, and moreover per my earlier post, doesn't the limitation for third party products just cut Apple out of a lucrative Lightning cable sale?

    I also don't really understand the limitation. If it's a license restriction, then all Apple has to do is specify the conditions under which a third party dual Lightning connector would work. At first I thought maybe it prevents someone from plugging Apple's Lightning charger into a dual iPhone, or Watch stand combo, for which it might be underpowered and cause damage. But Apple has complete control over that in their license. So to simply prevent it from happening when it could be related instead is a mystery.
  • Reply 98 of 102
    the "baffling" design decisions aren't baffling. you just didn't understand why they did them. Gruber does:

    http://daringfireball.net/2015/12/the_curious_case_of_the_curious_case
    First sentence, 2nd paragraph, "Apple’s Smart Battery Case, though still fairly unsightly," is all the legitimacy I need.
  • Reply 99 of 102
    mac_128 said:
    Does the Anker case have two passive antennas to maintain signal strength, thus preventing your phone from consuming more power than it otherwise would to connect to the nearest cellphone tower?
    I thought passive antennas were debunked in the late 90s, and actually do little if anything.
    Other companies sell "antenna booster" shims for cell phones, with dubious effectiveness.

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00009WCAP?keywords=cell phone antenna booster&qid=1450126229

    It seems Apple has removed all mention of the passive antenna enhancer from their product page:

    http://www.apple.com/shop/product/MGQL2/iphone-6s-smart-battery-case-charcoal-gray?fnode=42

    It's interesting that when other companies use inferior technology, it's because they are cheap junk makers.  But when Apple uses it, they are somehow better than everyone else:

    Apple fans ridicule other laptop manufacturers for using TN flat panels instead of IPS panels.  But when the MacBook Air uses TN panels, it's ok because "Apple is picking the 'better' TN panels".

    Before Apple started using glossy screens, Apple fans complained about the use of glossy screens in PC laptops.  But when Apple started using glossy screens, it was ok because Apple's gloss was somehow better than other gloss.
    edited December 2015
  • Reply 100 of 102
    mac_128 said:

    I went onto several different sites and they all report to same thing, Apple allows only one license per accessory, so if a 3rd party  product has a male lightning connector they cannot get an additional license to include the female one. 
    Well if that's in fact true and an impossible restriction to get around with Apple, it's absolutely puzzling, and borders on monopolistic practices.

    It also explains the lack of third party mifi video dongles, and other devices which would otherwise benefit from a pass through charging port. 

    I wonder if that will change now? Otherwise, who can compete with Apple's own offering, and moreover per my earlier post, doesn't the limitation for third party products just cut Apple out of a lucrative Lightning cable sale?

    I also don't really understand the limitation. If it's a license restriction, then all Apple has to do is specify the conditions under which a third party dual Lightning connector would work. At first I thought maybe it prevents someone from plugging Apple's Lightning charger into a dual iPhone, or Watch stand combo, for which it might be underpowered and cause damage. But Apple has complete control over that in their license. So to simply prevent it from happening when it could be related instead is a mystery.
    There were articles earlier this year about Apple finally licensing the female port, evidently it wasn't beforehand, but after that there's no mention of it. Did Apple change their mind? Was it too late for the case makers to suddenly adopt it? 
Sign In or Register to comment.