Please stop calling it wireless charging because it is not.
While it's more accurate to say inductive charging, it's interesting that Qi markets themselves as "wireless charging" and apparently nobody ever challenged that, so I don't blame the writers at AI for thinking that way. The groundwork for that was already laid by companies pushing the tech.
What is so difficult with plugging in an iPhone to charge? Wireless charging is NOT important, to me at least.
Such a weird argument to suggest that inductive charging may come to the iPhone because plugging it in is somehow "difficult." Were you also on the review of the Alpine's iLX-107 saying "What is so difficult with plugging in an iPhone for CarPlay? Wireless CarPlay is NOT important, to me at least."?
Huge difference between wireless and inductive. There’s not a whole lot of difference between plugging a phone in and laying it on a specific place on a table to charge.
What is so difficult with plugging in an iPhone to charge? Wireless charging is NOT important, to me at least.
Such a weird argument to suggest that inductive charging may come to the iPhone because plugging it in is somehow "difficult." Were you also on the review of the Alpine's iLX-107 saying "What is so difficult with plugging in an iPhone for CarPlay? Wireless CarPlay is NOT important, to me at least."?
Huge difference between wireless and inductive. There’s not a whole lot of difference between plugging a phone in and laying it on a specific place on a table to charge.
1) As @"suddenly newton" points out, inductive is wireless. Saying that there's a wire to the pad means it's not wireless is just as dumb as anything else that requires a power cable… which any long-range wireless charging station will need. Would you say that NFC isn't wireless because WiFi has a longer range or that WiFi isn't wireless because cellular technologies have a longer range? Of course not. Your argument is just as weak as people that bemoaned Apple moving from the iPod connector to Lightning: "Being reversible doesn't save you that much time." "No one needed a smaller connector." "Lightning is actually more difficult to plug in because it's so small."
2) Scenario: You get into a car and you want to charge your iPhone without using two hands. How do you accomplish this if you only have a loose cable? How do you disconnect at the end of the trip without yanking the cable when you grab the device?
The only way I've seen one-handed removal from a charged with a port interface connection is with a heavy or attached dock. You still have to be precious with placing the device onto the dock, though, which is a considerably less necessary with an inductive charging pad with a magnetic connector.
Huge difference between wireless and inductive. There’s not a whole lot of difference between plugging a phone in and laying it on a specific place on a table to charge.
There's a wire between the power plant and the WiTricity hub that would give situationally agnostic connectionless power to your home, too. So that's not wireless. Where do you draw the line? For the CONSUMER, it's at point of plug to the device in question. There's a difference between "situationally agnostic connectionless power" (like WiTricity, et. al.) and "situationally specific connectionless power," yes, but for the consumer it's only slightly different and, in both cases, is wireless (as far as they care).
No, the question is a commonly used dumb argument to claim that if it's not too difficult that there should be no advancement or options. Sucking your own dick is difficult but sucking a hobo's dick is probably pretty easy, yet I doubt you'd want to do that simply because I say "it's not so difficult." Difficultly is not the issue, which is why no one is saying, "now that inductive charging is coming to the iPhone I'll finally get one."
Soli, I've known you in this forum for over a decade. You've almost always been measured, calm, informed, and informative during much of this time. But of late, your posts have been needlessly aggressive, needlessly insulting, needlessly scatological. And surprisingly profane.
I think you need to take a step back, and chill.
You can take this feedback for what it's worth, but I felt it was important to point out.
No, the question is a commonly used dumb argument to claim that if it's not too difficult that there should be no advancement or options. Sucking your own dick is difficult but sucking a hobo's dick is probably pretty easy, yet I doubt you'd want to do that simply because I say "it's not so difficult." Difficultly is not the issue, which is why no one is saying, "now that inductive charging is coming to the iPhone I'll finally get one."
Soli, I've known you in this forum for over a decade. You've almost always been measured, calm, informed, and informative during much of this time. But of late, your posts have been needlessly aggressive, needlessly insulting, needlessly scatological. And surprisingly profane.
I think you need to take a step back, and chill.
You can take this feedback for what it's worth, but I felt it was important to point out.
If you can convince me it's a pointless endeavour for Apple to include inductive charging in more of their devices I'll gladly take back my previous comments.
I very much enjoy the wireless charging experience of the Apple Watch. Having a similar ease-of-use for the iPhone would be awesome for most of us, but particularly for folks who have limited manual dexterity, poor eyesight, and arm/hand/finger motor skills challenges. Imagine what it must be like for a person with hand tremors to plug a charging cable into a phone, much less clean the lint build-up out of the charging/docking port on the phone. Wireless charging is a nicety for some but a necessity for others.
Poor eyesight, and hand tremors that empty a fork before I can get it to my mouth... and I have no problems with the iPhone of iPad charging cables... you're making up problems where they don't occur...
I believe it. Its 2017 and Apple still uses a f***king usb 2.0 cable for their iPhones and iPads.
So long as the device still only supports USB 2.0 I think a cable rating for USB 2.0 speeds and power is acceptable.
It's when the iPad Pro started supporting that USB 3.0 that things became fuzzy for me. If you want to get USB 3.0 speeds and USB-C's faster charging you had to spend $49 USD on a MacBook PSU (which I'm guessing is overkill for the maximum the iPad Pro can support) and $25 to $35 USD for a USB-C-to-Lightning cable in a 1M or 2M length, respectively. That seems like a of extra coin.
When the finally move to USB-C on the PSU for iDevices—hopefully this year—I would expect that the included cable will offer included support. That makes sense to me but so did offering this with the iPad Pro, or least giving the buyer an option. If Apple wants to reduce waste then have a return program plethora of Apple PSUs was have from getting one with every device would be a good place to start -or- not offering a PSU (and possibly cable )in the box at all.
I don't think the inductive charging stand will be included. Perhaps not including the USB-C PSU and cable is Apple drawing a line in the sand with the upcoming iPhone so that they can reduce waste, cost, and packaging size by having an iPhone in a box potentially 1/4 what it is now.
I concur with those here who say Apple is reserving the 15W tech for the iPhone 9 so as to have something compelling for would-be buyers of the iPhone 9. Seriously, those of us who have been Apple enthusiasts since the 1980s know Apple very well. This is nothing new. Apple has long put "old tech" in their devices so as to make more money and to compel people to upgrade when the next "latest and greatest" Apple device comes out. And that is precisely why Power Computing other Mac clone makers were so successful in taking away business from Apple when Apple decided to license macOS in the 1990s. It was because those clone makers departed from Apple's strategy and instead put modern technology in their devices, along with greater expandability and upgradability, which is what the lured customers away from Apple's comparatively sub par machines. Even though Apple had a better industrial design than those clone makers, customers flocked to the clone makers because of faster performance, more ports, and better overall hardware functionality.
All of this means that if Apple would start giving people more value in Macs, they would have even more success than they have now. Macs have always been expensive, but in the past at least we Mac lovers could say that we were getting our money's worth. I'm not so sure we can really say that anymore about modern Macs, perhaps with the exception of the iMac alone.
This truth will of course piss off all of the "Apple is always right and never wrong, let's worship Apple" people in this forum. But truth is truth. If Apple were to license macOS today, a clone maker would probably come out with a 17 inch MacBook Pro that offers not only all of the functionality 15 inch MacBook Pro offers, but also restore everything Apple gutted from the 2015 edition. And they would probably sell quite well even if some could argue that Apple's manufacturing precision and design aesthetic were comparatively better.
Windows lovers would try to argue that we can get all of that now simply by turning the Windows, but that's like a Jedi turning to the Darkside. We who love macOS are sticking with macOS. We simply long for a greater value in the machines that we buy which run MacOS, which means we want more functionality, not less. And that doesn't mean more functionality from "a universal port that requires numerous dongles that likely will be forgotten at home." I'm happy to have those new USBC ports so long as we have at least one of the old USBA ports onboard too. And let us not forget the beloved SD card slot either.
I agree with you on this 17 inch MacBook. There is even a petition out to convince Apple to bring it back. Won't happen of course.
Key word: "Rumored". Instead of further speculating, I'm going to wait to hear what Cook has to say at the September presentation. If the rumor is true, I'll learn Apple's rationale for it, and still be thankful it's wireless, 7.5W or not.
No complaints, 7.5W is fine. Induction charging wastes energy, it is not efficient. If I am able to plug it in, well that is the best most efficient option. Also to state the obvious, 'wireless charging' is not wireless.
Exactly. Inductive energy transfer is not as efficient as a wired charger, and Apple is ever conscious of the environmental impact of the lifecycle of the products they build. Maybe a good compromise would be to bump the PSU to 7.5W and let the user plug into that either a wireless charging pad or a lightning cable. This would offer faster charging via the Lightning cable, versus prior iPhone models that provide a 5W PSU, and also provide decent charging speed via a wireless charging pad. I'm guessing the wireless charging pads would be sold separately; you'd get just the lightning cable in the box along with one 7.5W PSU. I'd be very happy if that's the direction Apple goes.
Please stop calling it wireless charging because it is not. For Apple Watch the induction charge is perfect but I don’t get it why we need induction chaging for iPhone, it is much easy to have a lightning cable with you and be able to charge it wherever possible. It would be a much more hassle to drag a induction pad along the way. The reversable lightning port makes charging a non issue. Not sure what benefit an induction charge would bring.
Apple will support an induction charging standard that is already in place at many locations. Some Starbucks tables, for example, have wireless charging built in. You don't need to bring along your charging pad or lightning cable. Just set your phone down on the compatible surface and it starts charging.
No complaints, 7.5W is fine. Induction charging wastes energy, it is not efficient. If I am able to plug it in, well that is the best most efficient option. Also to state the obvious, 'wireless charging' is not wireless.
Inductive energy transfer is not as efficient as a wired charger, and Apple is ever conscious of the environmental impact of the lifecycle of the products they build.
Based on that you're implying that Apple will never release a device that uses inductive charging and yet the Apple Watch exists.
Maybe a good compromise would be to bump the PSU to 7.5W and let the user plug into that either a wireless charging pad or a lightning cable. This would offer faster charging via the Lightning cable, versus prior iPhone models that provide a 5W PSU, and also provide decent charging speed via a wireless charging pad.
So you assumed that for inductive charging to be available that charging via Lightning wouldn't be possible. Under what scenario would you think that's how Apple would add this option to the iPhone? There are plenty of articles that have also stated that the iinductive charger won't even be included with the iPhone.
No complaints, 7.5W is fine. Induction charging wastes energy, it is not efficient. If I am able to plug it in, well that is the best most efficient option. Also to state the obvious, 'wireless charging' is not wireless.
Inductive energy transfer is not as efficient as a wired charger, and Apple is ever conscious of the environmental impact of the lifecycle of the products they build.
Based on that you're implying that Apple will never release a device that uses inductive charging and yet the Apple Watch exists.
Taken to the extreme, Apple would never build any products or office buildings. Doing nothing is more efficient than running a business, having workers commute to offices, utilizing raw materials to create products, etc. I think Apple isn't that draconian about it, nor would I want them to be. But they are adept at making good choices and compromises, to reduce the impact of the products and services they provide. My biggest gripe with Apple is with their packaging. I hope they'll find a way to greatly reduce the volume, even if it does contain recycled content and is offset by sustainable forestry. Conservation is the best way forward; reduce impact by using less in the first place.
Maybe a good compromise would be to bump the PSU to 7.5W and let the user plug into that either a wireless charging pad or a lightning cable. This would offer faster charging via the Lightning cable, versus prior iPhone models that provide a 5W PSU, and also provide decent charging speed via a wireless charging pad.
So you assumed that for inductive charging to be available that charging via Lightning wouldn't be possible. Under what scenario would you think that's how Apple would add this option to the iPhone? There are plenty of articles that have also stated that the iinductive charger won't even be included with the iPhone.
How do you infer that? Of course Lightning charging would be possible. I simply stated that Apple could exclude the inductive charging pad in the box. The keynote would go something like this. "iPhone now supports inductive charging, available at tens of thousands of locations [slide shows list of locations: Starbucks, et el]. Now you can top off your iPhone while on the go, without needing to bring along your charger. And if you want inductive charging at home or at your office, an optional inductive charging pad will be available for $39.95 USD." or some such. Where in my post did you read that I implied Lightning charging would no longer be available? I explicitly stated that it would.
I very much enjoy the wireless charging experience of the Apple Watch. Having a similar ease-of-use for the iPhone would be awesome for most of us, but particularly for folks who have limited manual dexterity, poor eyesight, and arm/hand/finger motor skills challenges. The Lightning connector is a big improvement on the 30-pin and micro USB but it still requires exacting dexterity and gentle handling to avoid damaging the delicate contacts on the cable connector and in the phone. It's also very prone to dust and lint build-up, especially when you carry it in a pants pocket. Imagine what it must be like for a person with hand tremors to plug a charging cable into a phone, much less clean the lint build-up out of the charging/docking port on the phone. Wireless charging is a nicety for some but a necessity for others.
Would these folk find touch screen challenging too?
What is so difficult with plugging in an iPhone to charge? Wireless charging is NOT important, to me at least.
Such a weird argument to suggest that inductive charging may come to the iPhone because plugging it in is somehow "difficult." Were you also on the review of the Alpine's iLX-107 saying "What is so difficult with plugging in an iPhone for CarPlay? Wireless CarPlay is NOT important, to me at least."?
Huge difference between wireless and inductive. There’s not a whole lot of difference between plugging a phone in and laying it on a specific place on a table to charge.
1) As @"suddenly newton" points out, inductive is wireless. Saying that there's a wire to the pad means it's not wireless is just as dumb as anything else that requires a power cable… which any long-range wireless charging station will need. Would you say that NFC isn't wireless because WiFi has a longer range or that WiFi isn't wireless because cellular technologies have a longer range? Of course not. Your argument is just as weak as people that bemoaned Apple moving from the iPod connector to Lightning: "Being reversible doesn't save you that much time." "No one needed a smaller connector." "Lightning is actually more difficult to plug in because it's so small."
2) Scenario: You get into a car and you want to charge your iPhone without using two hands. How do you accomplish this if you only have a loose cable? How do you disconnect at the end of the trip without yanking the cable when you grab the device?
The only way I've seen one-handed removal from a charged with a port interface connection is with a heavy or attached dock. You still have to be precious with placing the device onto the dock, though, which is a considerably less necessary with an inductive charging pad with a magnetic connector.
One handed removal seems good if the magnetic connector secure the phone in a car or train (for example) where there is movement that could cause the phone to move.
Please stop calling it wireless charging because it is not.
While it's more accurate to say inductive charging, it's interesting that Qi markets themselves as "wireless charging" and apparently nobody ever challenged that, so I don't blame the writers at AI for thinking that way. The groundwork for that was already laid by companies pushing the tech.
Inductive is wireless, the range is just really small. Induction is what happens when pulsating electromagnetic wave hit a conductor and move some electrons, that can happen at short distances (like a stovetop and Qi) or long distance if you're talking about antennas.
Sending power is always a iffy thing because it decreases at the inverse square root of distance, which requires some a very directed beam or beams to get the power to destination with minimum loss. But what if the target zone is moving, the receiving antenna is changing orientation? Well, that's even more complexity.
Of course, that power then has to go through the air or maybe people, which has its own big issues; using things like interference patterns and you could in theory create some small spots with much higher power when everywhere else has less. Having it adaptive could ensure the transmitter sending power to your phone is the closest ( a bit like cell phone handoff)..
So, overall complexity of fully wireless system seems pretty high and advantages well, not that high, how many watts are you getting into your phone then? If the phone is not in use, say in your pocket or sitting anywhere in the room then it could replenish it with a few watts. A better use would be for the watch that now would never need to be charged ever for most people.
Comments
2) Scenario: You get into a car and you want to charge your iPhone without using two hands. How do you accomplish this if you only have a loose cable? How do you disconnect at the end of the trip without yanking the cable when you grab the device?
The only way I've seen one-handed removal from a charged with a port interface connection is with a heavy or attached dock. You still have to be precious with placing the device onto the dock, though, which is a considerably less necessary with an inductive charging pad with a magnetic connector.
I think you need to take a step back, and chill.
You can take this feedback for what it's worth, but I felt it was important to point out.
It's when the iPad Pro started supporting that USB 3.0 that things became fuzzy for me. If you want to get USB 3.0 speeds and USB-C's faster charging you had to spend $49 USD on a MacBook PSU (which I'm guessing is overkill for the maximum the iPad Pro can support) and $25 to $35 USD for a USB-C-to-Lightning cable in a 1M or 2M length, respectively. That seems like a of extra coin.
When the finally move to USB-C on the PSU for iDevices—hopefully this year—I would expect that the included cable will offer included support. That makes sense to me but so did offering this with the iPad Pro, or least giving the buyer an option. If Apple wants to reduce waste then have a return program plethora of Apple PSUs was have from getting one with every device would be a good place to start -or- not offering a PSU (and possibly cable )in the box at all.
I don't think the inductive charging stand will be included. Perhaps not including the USB-C PSU and cable is Apple drawing a line in the sand with the upcoming iPhone so that they can reduce waste, cost, and packaging size by having an iPhone in a box potentially 1/4 what it is now.
Instead of further speculating, I'm going to wait to hear what Cook has to say at the September presentation. If the rumor is true, I'll learn Apple's rationale for it, and still be thankful it's wireless, 7.5W or not.
So you assumed that for inductive charging to be available that charging via Lightning wouldn't be possible. Under what scenario would you think that's how Apple would add this option to the iPhone? There are plenty of articles that have also stated that the iinductive charger won't even be included with the iPhone.
However,
Sending power is always a iffy thing because it decreases at the inverse square root of distance, which requires some a very directed beam or beams to get the power to destination with minimum loss. But what if the target zone is moving, the receiving antenna is changing orientation? Well, that's even more complexity.
Of course, that power then has to go through the air or maybe people, which has its own big issues; using things like interference patterns and you could in theory create some small spots with much higher power when everywhere else has less. Having it adaptive could ensure the transmitter sending power to your phone is the closest ( a bit like cell phone handoff)..
So, overall complexity of fully wireless system seems pretty high and advantages well, not that high, how many watts are you getting into your phone then? If the phone is not in use, say in your pocket or sitting anywhere in the room then it could replenish it with a few watts. A better use would be for the watch that now would never need to be charged ever for most people.