Wireless charging is a huge, big, waste of time, IMO.
But I'll trust Tim Cook's judgement in the end.
I mean, how much effort is it to plug my iPhone? 1 second?
What if the iPhone X doesn't have any ports? Why would you need a port if you can wirelessly charge it? I'm tell ya people this is coming soon...as soon as Apple gets wireless charging down, that lighting port will be a thing of the past. You can sync it wirelessly, connect bluetooth devices to it (wirelessly)such as EarPods and now charging wirelessly. No need for a lightning port anymore. I know this will piss people off just like the headphone jack, but people will get over it just like they did with the headphone jack missing.
Sorry, but wifi sync isn't ``down pat.'' The direct sync to Mac with iTunes will always be around.
If you use Apple Music, there's no need to sync. You just stream. Guess what Apple wants you to do....
Wireless charging is a huge, big, waste of time, IMO.
But I'll trust Tim Cook's judgement in the end.
I mean, how much effort is it to plug my iPhone? 1 second?
What if the iPhone X doesn't have any ports? Why would you need a port if you can wirelessly charge it? I'm tell ya people this is coming soon...as soon as Apple gets wireless charging down, that lighting port will be a thing of the past. You can sync it wirelessly, connect bluetooth devices to it (wirelessly)such as EarPods and now charging wirelessly. No need for a lightning port anymore. I know this will piss people off just like the headphone jack, but people will get over it just like they did with the headphone jack missing.
you are going to still need at least 1 port. You cant rely 100% on wireless
Apple Watch
Apple Watch has a port
Truly predictable. I was going to edit my comment knowing full well you'd comment what you did.
Wireless charging is a huge, big, waste of time, IMO.
But I'll trust Tim Cook's judgement in the end.
I mean, how much effort is it to plug my iPhone? 1 second?
One second times all the iPhone users in the world… :-|
Steve's magic boot time logic. Reminds me of the original sales pitch for the iPod. Severely flawed logic showing how much an iPod cost per song. Always makes me chuckle. The RDF is strong with this one.
One down side to wireless charging is that you can't pick up the phone and use it while charging. Might be convenient for cars that offer that capability because you are not supposed to pick up the phone while driving anyway, but I'd rather just have a battery that lasts all day under heavy usage so that I only need to charge at night where plugging it in is no big deal.
This isn't induction charging, this is actual wireless charging that works from a distance of at least a few feet.
What is called Induction charging is wireless, it's just a less focused one than what they're talking here; thus the distance is lower.
Induction means a pulsating electromagnetic field "induces" a current into another wire (a bit like an antenna but with more power).
Through beamforming and knowing were the destination device is, you could send a very focused pulsating electromagnetic wave of substantial power to induce a current into a receiving antenna array
I'm okay with charging that happens if I drop it on some sort of pad or something like that. But this whole flood the air with electricity and see who gets cancer thing to me seems like not a great idea.
Apple is going to offer wireless charging using a specially designed bumper case for the iPhone X. The phone itself has a lightning port, while the case has a lightning jack.
And the back surface of the case is high efficiency unbreakable solar panel - which will charge the phone whenever it is in light.
So you simply put the phone down, on its face, wherever there is ambient light, and it starts charging.
For when you are at home, or in your car, you can simply place the device on a charging mat.
One of the reasons for using this approach, is that, it allows Apple to sell the phone cheaper, but whoever needs wireless charging can pay extra for it. Secondly, the wireless charging works efficiently throughout the day, dramatically boosting the phone's battery life. But more importantly, Apple is moving away from people keeping the phone on their person - just leave it on your desk, and you can stay connected to the phone wirelessly through Apple Watch. For alerts, notifications, etc. And even reply to messages using Siri on the Apple Watch.
Wireless charging is a huge, big, waste of time, IMO.
But I'll trust Tim Cook's judgement in the end.
I mean, how much effort is it to plug my iPhone? 1 second?
What if the iPhone X doesn't have any ports? Why would you need a port if you can wirelessly charge it? I'm tell ya people this is coming soon...as soon as Apple gets wireless charging down, that lighting port will be a thing of the past. You can sync it wirelessly, connect bluetooth devices to it (wirelessly)such as EarPods and now charging wirelessly. No need for a lightning port anymore. I know this will piss people off just like the headphone jack, but people will get over it just like they did with the headphone jack missing.
Hmm, this and those concept renders I keep seeing got me thinking...no ports, and maybe no physical buttons or switches either...
I do rely on the physical buttons to feel which end is up when I pull my phone out of my pocket, but with alternate ways of providing touch ID and taptic feedback for identifying "virtual" touch based buttons that could be on the sides, I could see that it wouldn't matter which way you grabbed your phone. The phone will make whichever side is physically "up" be the functional "up," even from the home screen, right when you pick it up. Elaborating on the way that the screen turns on when you pick up an iPhone 7.
I'm not sure how a power switch would fit into this concept. And it would be good to keep some physical electrical contact for wired or battery case charging (but maybe this could be achieved like the magnetic keyboard connector dots on iPad Pro).
Thanks for bringing some sanity to the discussion... The magic of Apple and the legacy of Jobs is that Apple continues to avoid introducing a tech innovation unless it produces some benefit to the end user. It avoids tech for tech's sake and realizes that tech innovations are simply the path to improve the life of the user. It's a fine line, but an important one...
I suspect that Apple techs and execs are asking the same questions that you just did.
Wireless charging is a huge, big, waste of time, IMO.
But I'll trust Tim Cook's judgement in the end.
I mean, how much effort is it to plug my iPhone? 1 second?
What if the iPhone X doesn't have any ports? Why would you need a port if you can wirelessly charge it? I'm tell ya people this is coming soon...as soon as Apple gets wireless charging down, that lighting port will be a thing of the past. You can sync it wirelessly, connect bluetooth devices to it (wirelessly)such as EarPods and now charging wirelessly. No need for a lightning port anymore. I know this will piss people off just like the headphone jack, but people will get over it just like they did with the headphone jack missing.
you are going to still need at least 1 port. You cant rely 100% on wireless
Apple Watch
Actually, Apple Watch DOES have a port -- it's under the band. It's currently used for diagnostics. But, I strongly suspect it will come into play when Apple expands functionality out into the band.
Apple is perhaps just now catching up to Nikola Tesla (the true father of AC electric current) who demonstrated wireless power transmission over a hundred years ago. First he demonstrated it by holding a precursor to a fluorescent tube in his hand (without wires) in a charged field and it lit up. Later he built the Tesla Tower. It started as a radio tower but he attempted to convert it to power transmission tower -- but JP Morgan cut off his funding it was destroyed in 1917. Tesla's tower was not designed to provide power within a room, but within a city.
Wireless charging is a huge, big, waste of time, IMO.
But I'll trust Tim Cook's judgement in the end.
I mean, how much effort is it to plug my iPhone? 1 second?
What if the iPhone X doesn't have any ports? Why would you need a port if you can wirelessly charge it? I'm tell ya people this is coming soon...as soon as Apple gets wireless charging down, that lighting port will be a thing of the past. You can sync it wirelessly, connect bluetooth devices to it (wirelessly)such as EarPods and now charging wirelessly. No need for a lightning port anymore. I know this will piss people off just like the headphone jack, but people will get over it just like they did with the headphone jack missing.
you are going to still need at least 1 port. You cant rely 100% on wireless
Apple Watch
Actually, Apple Watch DOES have a port -- it's under the band. It's currently used for diagnostics. But, I strongly suspect it will come into play when Apple expands functionality out into the band.
I expect that when Apple introduces smart bands, it will be for a new Apple Watch model where the interface to the bands is like the iPad Pro Smart Connector (no pins - just a coupling).
Apple couldn't care less about your 3rd world internet...It never has in the past and shouldn't today.
Seems like the only government lobbying Apple ought to be doing is fighting for increased US bandwidth, given that its business is sort of dependent on the country…
Just to be accurate, charging a battery in itself generate heat, whether it is wireless or wired charging. The issue is not that wireless charging will generated extra heat as the article is implying. The real issue it Glass is better insulator than a conductor. The only way to get heat out of the phone is through conduction and radiation and the best material for this is metals. It sounds like Apple is going to use a graphite sheet to conduct and spread the heat over a large area, otherwise, there will be local heating in areas where it most likely will cause problems.
Wireless charging is a huge, big, waste of time, IMO.
What passes for wireless charging on the market today is indeed a gigantic gimmick for people who don't think critically.
Phil Schiller has openly criticized these implementations as not wireless at all, and more inconvenient than convenient. And he's right.
It doesn't take a genius to realize Apple's implementation is going to be completely different, and redefine wireless charging.
This is true, most all wireless charging is just using the concept of a transformer. In this case instead of doing some sort of voltage step down or step up so not to have to have very large conductors getting power form one place to another, the charging system out there just set up a transformer with an insulator in between to induce a current into a metal conductor around the battery to charge it. As people point out transformer type of setups are not that efficient.
What if the iPhone X doesn't have any ports? Why would you need a port if you can wirelessly charge it? I'm tell ya people this is coming soon...as soon as Apple gets wireless charging down, that lighting port will be a thing of the past. You can sync it wirelessly, connect bluetooth devices to it (wirelessly)such as EarPods and now charging wirelessly. No need for a lightning port anymore. I know this will piss people off just like the headphone jack, but people will get over it just like they did with the headphone jack missing.
you are going to still need at least 1 port. You cant rely 100% on wireless
Interesting article you linked to but I think most of us want our phones to last more than 40 femtoseconds.
But realistically Apple would never do that because the process requires energy enough to power an entire city to affect a spot the size of one twentieth of a human hair. Completely out of line with Apple's environmental policy.
What if the iPhone X doesn't have any ports? Why would you need a port if you can wirelessly charge it? I'm tell ya people this is coming soon...as soon as Apple gets wireless charging down, that lighting port will be a thing of the past. You can sync it wirelessly, connect bluetooth devices to it (wirelessly)such as EarPods and now charging wirelessly. No need for a lightning port anymore. I know this will piss people off just like the headphone jack, but people will get over it just like they did with the headphone jack missing.
you are going to still need at least 1 port. You cant rely 100% on wireless
Apple Watch
There's a 6 pin hidden port on the watch.
User-accessible. Here, I've simplified my comment for you.
Comments
Induction means a pulsating electromagnetic field "induces" a current into another wire (a bit like an antenna but with more power).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_induction
Through beamforming and knowing were the destination device is, you could send a very focused pulsating electromagnetic wave of substantial power to induce a current into a receiving antenna array
And the back surface of the case is high efficiency unbreakable solar panel - which will charge the phone whenever it is in light.
So you simply put the phone down, on its face, wherever there is ambient light, and it starts charging.
For when you are at home, or in your car, you can simply place the device on a charging mat.
One of the reasons for using this approach, is that, it allows Apple to sell the phone cheaper, but whoever needs wireless charging can pay extra for it. Secondly, the wireless charging works efficiently throughout the day, dramatically boosting the phone's battery life. But more importantly, Apple is moving away from people keeping the phone on their person - just leave it on your desk, and you can stay connected to the phone wirelessly through Apple Watch. For alerts, notifications, etc. And even reply to messages using Siri on the Apple Watch.
The magic of Apple and the legacy of Jobs is that Apple continues to avoid introducing a tech innovation unless it produces some benefit to the end user. It avoids tech for tech's sake and realizes that tech innovations are simply the path to improve the life of the user. It's a fine line, but an important one...
I suspect that Apple techs and execs are asking the same questions that you just did.
First he demonstrated it by holding a precursor to a fluorescent tube in his hand (without wires) in a charged field and it lit up.
Later he built the Tesla Tower. It started as a radio tower but he attempted to convert it to power transmission tower -- but JP Morgan cut off his funding it was destroyed in 1917. Tesla's tower was not designed to provide power within a room, but within a city.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wardenclyffe_Tower
This is true, most all wireless charging is just using the concept of a transformer. In this case instead of doing some sort of voltage step down or step up so not to have to have very large conductors getting power form one place to another, the charging system out there just set up a transformer with an insulator in between to induce a current into a metal conductor around the battery to charge it. As people point out transformer type of setups are not that efficient.
But realistically Apple would never do that because the process requires energy enough to power an entire city to affect a spot the size of one twentieth of a human hair. Completely out of line with Apple's environmental policy.