We'll never see a USB-C iPhone. Portless iPhone by model 14 or 15 at the latest. A change from lightning to USB-C for a year or two would be stupid. The only tech obstacle is a fast enough charging speed to match wired, and we're not that far off now. Wireless data transfer is already there. We'd also need some sort of wireless dongle to plug into cars that are wired CarPlay only. Maybe I'm forgetting something, but I see no other major obstacles to a portless iPhone.
Wireless charging is never going to be as efficient as wired charging,
Never?
That comment won’t age well.
This comment will age just fine, it’s simple physics. Wireless charging will always be less efficient since it’s not a direct nearly lossless connection.
FileMakerFeller said: Wireless charging is never going to be as efficient as wired charging, so the energy consumption will go up. Eco-warriors will have a field day panning Apple on such a move.
That said, Steve Jobs correctly pointed out that convenience trumps quality. Apple will probably find some way to market its approach as better for the environment when looked at holistically, and enough people will be ambivalent about the tradeoffs that sales will continue at record levels.
The largest iPhone (13 Pro Max) has a 16.5WH battery. If we presume 95% efficiency for wired charge, 50% for wireless, and 1000 full charge cycles per battery lifetime, the lifetime excess energy required for wireless charging is 15.6KWH. In my locale, the current electric rate is $0.13/KWH. That's a total, lifetime excess energy cost of $1.99. I've measured the efficiency of my cheap wireless iPhone charging stand at about 65% and I usually have at least 2/3 charge at the end of a day on my smaller 12WH battery, so my iPhone's 1000 day excess energy usage is about $0.71. That's about $0.26/year.
Meanwhile, a HomePod draws 1.75 Watts when idle. That's $1.98 per year, if I never use it.
FileMakerFeller said: Wireless charging is never going to be as efficient as wired charging, so the energy consumption will go up. Eco-warriors will have a field day panning Apple on such a move.
That said, Steve Jobs correctly pointed out that convenience trumps quality. Apple will probably find some way to market its approach as better for the environment when looked at holistically, and enough people will be ambivalent about the tradeoffs that sales will continue at record levels.
The largest iPhone (13 Pro Max) has a 16.5WH battery. If we presume 95% efficiency for wired charge, 50% for wireless, and 1000 full charge cycles per battery lifetime, the lifetime excess energy required for wireless charging is 15.6KWH. In my locale, the current electric rate is $0.13/KWH. That's a total, lifetime excess energy cost of $1.99. I've measured the efficiency of my cheap wireless iPhone charging stand at about 65% and I usually have at least 2/3 charge at the end of a day on my smaller 12WH battery, so my iPhone's 1000 day excess energy usage is about $0.71. That's about $0.26/year.
Meanwhile, a HomePod draws 1.75 Watts when idle. That's $1.98 per year, if I never use it.
Everything in perspective.
There are about 1 Billion plus iPhones (3 Billion plus, if you include all of the smartphones) actively being used worldwide. For HomePods (and all other smart speakers put together), what would that number be? Just to keep things in perspective.
Agreed, Apple could do it. They just don't want to. Like I have said before, I think it is related to keeping the phone waterproof.
I believe we will see the deletion of the lightning port not a replacement. Apple's is waiting until enough owners start using wireless charging so the uproar will be less. Not helping is the impact of COVID, which resulted in some vehicle manufactures having to drop wireless charging for the time being.
They probably took a similar approach to dropping the headphone jack and charger.
A few more release and they'll drop the box too and our phones will come wrapped only in recycled paper.
If they are going to do that, they need to include a MagSafe charging puck. They don't even have to include the brick. Selling it without either would require anyone without a wireless charger to buy one. The lawyers are already salivating around the globe on that one.
Apple doesn't have to do anything. Manufactures sell flashlights and toys w/o batteries.
I don't think it's so much a matter of want to as one of see a clear benefit.
USB-C is very trendy right now, and the new EU law is definitely going to have an impact on Apple's business logic, but there are other things that they need to consider in addition, including:
Cost to add higher speed communication to the iPhone. If a USB-C iPhone continues to use USB 2.0 data rates, that eliminates much of the technical advantage.
Other Lightening capabilities. Lightening was originally designed to replace the 30-pin Dock connector, which had several things like analog A/V, that Lightening later incorporated. I don't know how many of these features are still used, but they will be important to any transition plan. For instance, a Lightening headphone adapter only has to (as far as I know) identify itself as such (via the ID chip) and then connect the analog I/O pins to the connector - so it can be a cheap and simple adapter. But a USB-C adapter needs to include a full USB audio interface into that adapter.
Ticking off existing customers. People over the years have bought a lot of Lightening-based devices. When Apple dropped the 30-pin connector, there was a lot of complaining from people who had to toss out peripherals or buy adapters. The Lightening-based ecosystem is even bigger and will probably generate an even bigger wave of complaints.
Ultimately, it is (as you wrote) a business decision, but there are a lot of factors involved. It's not just a matter of whether Apple management "wants to".
I don't see any of those are being all that detrimental. The cost is minimal. There's no need for the "other" lightning capabilities you mention. A lot of people aren't using wired earbuds anyway. Now, there will always be complaints...that I get. But a USB-C to lightning adapter can't be that much to to include. Ultimately, they may go whole hog and just get rid of the port entirely, going to MagSafe completely.
You're kidding right. You seem to forget how bent out of shape everyone got when Apple stopped including the USB A 5W charger, which Apple stopped shipping b/c it was insufficient to charge the iPhone and they weren't about to give everyone the $20 USB C 20W charger for free.
You must also never have purchased a Bose speaker that used the 30 pin connector then the followup version that used the lightning connector before they went all BT. Yeah, the obsolesce of those $300+ peripheral didn't hurt.
There's a very large aftermarket to consider that include the customer and the manufacture.
Agreed, Apple could do it. They just don't want to. Like I have said before, I think it is related to keeping the phone waterproof.
Nah. Other device manufacturers make waterproof USB-C devices just fine.
Such as?
The "waterproof" ones I have seen rely on a gasket on one side and the plug to "seal" the port. I do not believe there is a naked waterproof USB C port. But willing to be proved wrong.
Agreed, Apple could do it. They just don't want to. Like I have said before, I think it is related to keeping the phone waterproof.
Nah. Other device manufacturers make waterproof USB-C devices just fine.
Such as?
The "waterproof" ones I have seen rely on a gasket on one side and the plug to "seal" the port. I do not believe there is a naked waterproof USB C port. But willing to be proved wrong.
Agreed, Apple could do it. They just don't want to. Like I have said before, I think it is related to keeping the phone waterproof.
Nah. Other device manufacturers make waterproof USB-C devices just fine.
Such as?
The "waterproof" ones I have seen rely on a gasket on one side and the plug to "seal" the port. I do not believe there is a naked waterproof USB C port. But willing to be proved wrong.
Wireless charging is never going to be as efficient as wired charging,
Never?
That comment won’t age well.
Makes sense to me. It's a matter of physics. Every time you convert energy from one form to another, there are losses. Converting electricity to magnetism and back to electricity is going to have to transfer less power than simply sending that electricity directly to the device with a cable.
... Apple stopped including the USB A 5W charger, which Apple stopped shipping b/c it was insufficient to charge the iPhone...
Who says it is insufficient to charge the iPhone? I'm using one of those 5W chargers on a brand new iPhone 13 and it works just fine. Sure a 20W charger would go faster, but not everybody needs fast charging. For me, a charge lasts all day, and 5W is more than enough to bring it up to 100% overnight while I'm asleep.
Comments
Meanwhile, a HomePod draws 1.75 Watts when idle. That's $1.98 per year, if I never use it.
Everything in perspective.
You must also never have purchased a Bose speaker that used the 30 pin connector then the followup version that used the lightning connector before they went all BT. Yeah, the obsolesce of those $300+ peripheral didn't hurt.
There's a very large aftermarket to consider that include the customer and the manufacture.
The "waterproof" ones I have seen rely on a gasket on one side and the plug to "seal" the port. I do not believe there is a naked waterproof USB C port. But willing to be proved wrong.
When there is a gasket (mating with the plug) it is to make sure no water can short the connector itself, e.g. when charging.
The top 3 phones are iPhones w/Water resistance: IP68; max 20 feet (6 meters) for 30 minutes.
The next is a Samsung w/Water resistance: IP68; max 5 feet (1.5 meters) for 30 minutes
Which phone on the list uses USB-C?
Who says it is insufficient to charge the iPhone? I'm using one of those 5W chargers on a brand new iPhone 13 and it works just fine. Sure a 20W charger would go faster, but not everybody needs fast charging. For me, a charge lasts all day, and 5W is more than enough to bring it up to 100% overnight while I'm asleep.