MathieuWacowich

Soli said:

linkman said:

Apple might be drooling at the idea that they can make their devices even thinner with this battery but I need to state this clearly: THEY ARE THIN AND LIGHT ENOUGH RIGHT NOW. If this technology pans out then put this battery in and give us 24+ hour usage on most of our mobile devices.

Using a denser battery tech to make a smaller device isn't the only benefit—you can also add more technology. I don't expect Apple to ever say with their iPhone, "let's keep the battery volume the same size to get 3x the usage on a single charge." No scenario I can think of makes that happen. Consider the iPhone 6S series which added the haptic engine which reduced the battery size. Then you have the iPhone 7 series which brought back the larger battery when they removed the headphone jack, and which also allowed for a barometric vent to be added in its place and everything at the top to be moved down so that considerably better camera tech could be added. Going with a smaller battery is going to happen once the technology allows for significant density growth. There's just no other reasonable solution for a CE company. Even on the Apple Watch—which is where I'd think a new, low volume, and expensive battery tech would be tested first in a shipping product, if not something even smaller, like AirPods—if they can get triple the density they'd very deduce that battery volume by at least half. I certainly would.

sirlance99 said:

Still not going to be as good as my home theater system that I have. It’ll be interesting to see what this does though.