AppleInsider · Kasper's Automated Slave

Following the ruling that Apple has willfully violated the anti-steering aspect of the Epic vs Apple trial, the company must make specific changes to the App Store. Here's what it must immediately do, and what this all means for Apple, developers, and users.

App Store icon on an iPhone

Apple won the trial against Epic Games, which was started by the games company intentionally violating its App Store agreements. But Apple did lose on one count regarding how developers can and can't direct users away from the App Store.

Epic Games pressed on this point and has now won a victory with Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers agreeing that Apple violated an anti-steering injunction. Describing Apple's subsequent actions as "gross insubordination," Judge Rogers not only repeated the anti-steering injunction, but specified steps in particular detail to prevent Apple being able to do anything but comply.

Apple also must comply immediately, regardless of whether it appeals. The court "will not entertain a request for a stay given the repeated delays and severity of the conduct."

While Judge Rogers grouped her requirements into six general categories, the specific individual instructions Apple must abide by are:

• Cease charging any fee on purchases made outside of an app


• Cease demanding developers report purchases


• Cease restricting how developers promote within their apps any alternative purchase options


• Allow developers to use any links, buttons, or other calls to action, as they want


• Cease refusing to allow apps in its video and news partner programs to offer links to alternative purchases


• Use only the court-approved notification when users follow a link to a third-party site


• Cease forcing developers to link only to one specified page on their site


• Allow developers to instead send users directly to pages regarding the purchase they want

Judge Rogers maintains that Apple had successfully made as few developers as possible benefit from the court's original anti-steering ruling. "As of the May 2024 hearing," she wrote, "only 34 developers out of the approximately 136,000 total developers on the App Store applied for the program, and seventeen of those developers had not offered in-app purchases in the first place."

Specifically to prevent Apple interpreting the new orders in any way that would repeat this situation, Judge Rogers laid out her precise requirements. Each limits Apple in particular ways -- and each has consequences.

Cease charging any fee on purchases made outside of an app

In response to allowing developers to offer purchases that would not mean Apple getting up to a 30% commission, Apple offered a new option that was allegedly meant to discourage developers. They could offer external purchases, but any bought through the app would mean them having to pay Apple a 27% cut.

Disney is in Apple's Video Partner Program, which excluded it from offering external purchase links

Further, just as with certain affiliate programs, Apple did not solely require a cut of any purchase made through "immediate use of the link." Apple also mandated that it get 27% of all purchases made within seven days of the user tapping or clicking that external link.

Cease demanding developers report purchases

As part of ensuring that it got paid for external purchases, Apple required developers to report their earnings. It required firms to allow Apple to conduct audits of its revenue, and monitor that developers were correctly paying what was owed.

In wiping out the option to charge any fee for an external purchase, Judge Rogers ruled that therefore "no reason exists to audit, monitor, track or require developers to report purchases or any other activity that consumers make outside an app."

Cease restricting how developers promote within their apps any alternative purchase options

Apple did very specifically adhere to the ruling that meant it had to allow developers to link out to alternative offers. But it mandated that developers could only show one link at one point in their app.

More, that one point could not be on a screen listing in-app purchases, nor at any point on the way to that screen. The link also couldn't stay on screen in any way after a user has gone by it.

Plus, the link could not be placed in a pop-up, and it had to be on section of the app that the user positively chooses to go to. It couldn't, for instance, appear on a splash screen as the app launches.

Allow developers to use any links, buttons, or other calls to action, as they want

When allowing developers to link out to alternative sites or offers, Apple dictated -- and so limited -- the precise wording used. Five basic templates were allowed, which on the one hand denied developers the facility to use persuasive calls to action, instead of neutral ones.

But it also meant that developers could solely link out for one of the purposes specified in the templates. Apple was using its rules to constrain a developer's operation.

"If a developer wanted to compete on price not by offering lower prices but by offering other products or benefits on the web, there is no way to communicate that to a user in-app," wrote Judge Rogers.

Cease refusing to allow apps in its video and news partner programs to offer links to alternative purchases

This refers to how Apple chose to exclude any developer in either its Video Partner Program, or its News Partner Program. As examples, Judge Rogers listed Disney+ and the New York Times.

Those developers pay a 15% in-app purchase fee to Apple, but if they elected to add links to external options, that fee changes to 30% for every in-app purchase.

"Said differently," wrote Judge Rogers, "and simply, including an external purchase link in their app doubles their commission rate."

Use only the court-approved notification when users follow a link to a third-party site

Apple does remain allowed to notify users that they are leaving the App Store and a particular app, so that it is clear they are going to a third-party site or service. That's probably done with a mind to potential legal difficulties if a user visits a bad actor's site and argues they believed they were still in Apple's curated App Store.

Left: an example of how Apple wanted to warn users before leaving an app. Right: the new court-mandated wording -- image credit: US District Court

However, Judge Rogers referred to Apple's current notification as the use of a "scare screen," designed to put users off.

Judge Rogers not only mandated that such scare screens cannot be used, she specified that only a "neutral message" can be shown instead.

Cease forcing developers to link only to one specified page on their site

Apple limited how links could be shown in apps, but then also limited where those links could take users. They were required to go to one static page, such as a developer's homepage.

So if a developer had two or more different offerings, they were not allowed to link directly and separately to each of them. Instead, they would have to create a page that listed everything, and require the user to take another step through to what they want to buy.

Allow developers to instead send users directly to pages regarding the purchase they want

Developers could not send any information along to its site when a user elected to follow a link there. There's a privacy argument about passing user details to third-parties, but in this case the information would typically concern which offer the user wanted.

So they could, for instance, choose a tier within the app and then be taken to the correct product page to buy that tier.

What happens next

Apple has responded, saying that "we strongly disagree" with the injunction, and that it will appeal.

It's conceivable that the appeal could reverse the latest decision, although it's unlikely. But regardless of the outcome of that appeal, Apple will have to implement all of these changes immediately -- and that will not be the end of the case.

For alongside ordering the new and very tightly-specified steps Apple has to take, Judge Rogers has referred the case for potential criminal proceedings against the company over alleged lies during the trial.



Read on AppleInsider

Easter Sunday pedestrians managed to have a peaceful experience browsing a Dutch Apple Store, as the front door was left unlocked when the store was meant to be closed.

The Apple Store in Amsterdam - Image Credit: Apple

A group of weekend shoppers in Amsterdam were surprised on a visit to the Apple Store in Leidseplein on Sunday with an extremely tranquil shopping experience. Entering the store to acquire an Apple Watch, the group discovered they were the only ones there, with no staff present at all.

It turned out that the store was actually closed. Along with no employees, the store also had other signs that it wasn't in use that day, such as powered-down products and marketing screens turned off.

With signs that the store was mistakenly accessible, some of the twenty people who entered the store called the police, reports Algemeen Dagblad. People in the group ushered the rest out of the store and wait for the police to arrive, while also watching out to prevent looting.

They did leave, but not before sharing the unusual situation on TikTok. A video from Arvin Mulder who was in attendance has reached over 510 thousand views, shows the state of the store at the time.

Eventually, a security guard who was in the canteen arrived and discovered the group. It turned out that they had forgotten to lock the door to the store.

Police later arrived to confirm nothing had been stolen or broken, and that access was an accident.

Coincidental timing

The timing of the incident is apt, due to the store featuring prominently in the media, thank to Netflix. The streamer recently released a crime drama, "iHostage," which retells the hostage situation that took place at the same Apple Store.

During that incident, an armed man entered the Apple Store and took a hostage at gunpoint, demanding $230 million in cryptocurrency. After a tense standoff, the perpetrator was run over by a police vehicle and later died in the hospital.



Read on AppleInsider

Apple could be severely affected as Trump reportedly pressures countries to limit their business dealings with China, which will result in more retaliations against US companies.

Tim Cook and Donal Trump in 2019 -- image credit: White House

China previously called Trump's trade war a joke and said it would not retaliate further than matching what was then said to be a 125% tariff imposed by the US. That tariff was then revealed to actually be 145%, and China did not escalate its own tariffs -- although it did halt rare earth mineral exports.

Now, however, CNBC reports that China has responded to what appears to be Trump's next move. While not announced by Trump or any other country involved, it is believed that isolating China is a key part of the White House's tariff negotiations worldwide.

"China firmly opposes any party reaching a deal at the expense of China's interests," a spokesperson for the Chinese Ministry of Commerce said, in translation. "If this happens, China will not accept it and will resolutely take reciprocal countermeasures."

In a press release from the Chinese Ministry of Commerce, the spokesperson went further and, again in translation, accused the US of having "coerced all parties to start so-called 'reciprocal tariff' negotiations."

"China believes that all parties should stand on the side of fairness and justice on the issue of 'reciprocal tariffs'," continued the spokesperson, "stand on the side of historical correctness, and defend international economic and trade rules and multilateral trading system."

In recent days, Trump has claimed to be in discussions with China and according to C-SPAN, says he expects an agreement to be reached "over the next three or four weeks."

According to Politico, no such discussions have taken place, even though China might allow its new international trade representative to negotiate. It's reportedly because Trump insists on dealing only with China's President Xi Jinping.

What this means for Apple

Analyst Ming-Chi Kuo, the risks for Apple are severe. Countries could impose their own tariffs on components sent to them from China, for example.

Kuo's tweet continues by noting that "if only the US imposes high tariffs on Chinese imports, the risks [for Apple] are manageable."

"However, if other countries also raise tariffs on Chinese goods," he says, "Apple would need to establish more non-China iPhone production lines to meet demand in markets beyond the U.S., meaning the tariff risks for Apple would become immeasurable and entirely uncontrollable."

What happens next

Currently Apple is benefiting from an exemption to the China tariffs, although Trump repeatedly denies that there are any exemptions. At the same time, Trump also paused all tariffs -- except for those on China.

Tim Cook was able to get Apple a tariff exemption because he's kept up a working relationship with Trump (right)

Apple is likely to face further tariffs after the conclusion of a spurious investigation into any national security concerns with semiconductor production. Trump says Apple has not been given what he calls "exception," but rather it belongs in a different "bucket' of tariffs.

That bucket is one concerning semiconductors, but White House documentation backdates the investigation to before Trump's "reciprocal" tariffs were announced. It's not clear why Apple or other firms were then put into the presumably general "bucket" of tariffs.

It is clear, though, that the investigation will be followed by tariffs. While the documentation invites submissions by interested parties and purports that it will only impose tariffs if there are national security concerns, it is now certain to impose them.

That's because commerce secretary Howard Lutnick has already said on April 15 that semiconductor tariffs are "coming in probably a month or two." Trump, at the same time, said they would be imposed "next week."

Despite Tim Cook having reportedly persuaded Trump to exempt Apple from the tariffs, it has also been confirmed that the relief is only temporary. Apple was granted its exemption late on Friday, April 9, and shares rose from $198.15 to $211.44 when trading opened the following Monday.

That's still far below the $225.19 they were trading at before the "reciprocal" tariffs were announced. And at time of writing, they are down yet again, to $190.90.



Read on AppleInsider

Despite repeated political promises recently saying otherwise, because of federal wants and big business needs over the last 100 years, the U.S. lacks both the low-cost labor and specialized manufacturing workforce needed to bring iPhone production home.

Tim Cook visiting a Foxconn assembly line in China

On Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt answered whether Trump believes iPhone production could ultimately move to the US. Allegedly, he thinks the U.S. has the money and labor to float such a project.

That is not the case.

To be clear, this isn't just an Apple problem. This is a problem for manufacturing, especially electronics manufacturing, across the board.

However, with all the talk of how much these tariffs are going to make future iPhone models cost, let's take some time to examine how this might affect Cupertino.

Made in China

When I was a child, nearly any time I turned over a knickknack or doodad, there'd inevitably be a little golden sticker on the bottom that said "Made in China." At the time, I had no idea what that meant; I simply thought everything must be, and must have been, made in China.

Made in China stickers

And, as it turned out, I was half right. When I was born, the United States imported $4.77 billion in trade goods from China. Ten years later, in 1996, that number grew to, $51.51 billion, an increase of more than tenfold.

Image Credit: Statista Research Department

A little over two decades later, that number had grown more than tenfold again, reaching a staggering all-time high of $538.51 billion in 2018. That's a lot of knickknacks and doodads.

All of this was encouraged by customer spending, US government initiatives, and big business need to appease investors by having eternal growth.

So, for as long as I've been alive, the U.S. has been steadily growing more dependent on China for its goods. Let's take a look at how we got to this point, and how some decisions made decades ago echo to today.

400 Million Customers

America's modern trade relationship with China was established in the 1930s. At that time, however, we weren't looking to buy products from China, but rather to sell China our products.

NPR has a fantastic piece on the history of modern U.S.-China trade relations, but I'll give you the broad strokes. Nevertheless, I suggest you check it out.

In the early 1910s, Carl Crow, a journalist, writer, and later on, businessman, moved to China to cover the country's national revolution. During his time there, he realized that something far more lucrative awaited him: a career in advertising.

Crow went on to found Carl Crow Inc. in 1920. It was an advertising agency specializing in driving sales of American-made goods, like Buicks, Colgate toothpaste, and Kodak cameras to the Chinese market.

Image Credit: Katya Knyazeva (avezink) on LiveJournal

Crow did quite well, and in 1937 wrote a book called 400 Million Customers: The Experiences -- Some Happy, Some Sad -- of an American in China and What They Taught Him. Not only was the book an award-winning bestseller, it also opened America's eyes to the idea of selling large quantities of goods to a then-mostly untapped market.

However, things quickly went askew, as they often do. In 1938, the "War of Resistance" between China and Japan made trade far more difficult.

In the following decade, the Chinese Communist Revolution took place. Then, between the Cold War and the war in Korea, the U.S. decided to slap China with a strict trade embargo in 1950.

800 million workers

It would take two more decades before the tensions between the U.S. and China eased, but things began to calm down in the 1970s. Slowly, China-made goods trickled into America. Some of the first goods were luxury-made textiles, spurred by America's recent fascination with East Asian culture.

It didn't take long before American businesses saw a new use for China: millions of workers willing to work for a fraction of what domestic labor costs. It also didn't hurt that container shipping had been doing quite well for itself by that point.

Much like the textile workers of 1800s England came to fear and hate the automation and industrialization spurred by stocking frames, American textile workers pushed back against China-made goods.

Yet, by the 1980s, many American businesses -- including Apple -- had already begun outsourcing work.

A corporate symbiotic relationship

Throughout the '80s and '90s, most of Apple's products were still made in America. But a fortuitous relationship between Apple and Taiwan-based Foxconn began to blossom in the late '90s, and would ultimately lead to the situation Apple finds itself in today.

Foxconn is the world's largest electronics manufacturer and has twelve factories scattered across China. While around 95% of iPhones are assembled in China, Foxconn unquestionably assembles the most iPhones -- about 70%.

It was a long road to get there, but one that would tether Apple to China for the foreseeable future.

One year after he took the reins as Apple CEO, Tim Cook made a trip to Foxconn's newly built Zhengzhou Technology Park -- which is now often referred to as "iPhone City." At that time, the facility employed roughly 120,000 people.

Workers in a Foxconn factory

That number would grow to 200,000 in 2022. It's hard to say if Apple is the reason Foxconn is so successful, or if it's the other way around. Likely the answer is somewhere in the middle, as it's been wildly profitable for both businesses.

And Foxconn is hardly the only foreign company that Apple is inextricably bound to. The Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, or TSMC, makes the semiconductors Apple uses in its products.

As a result, Apple accounts for the most significant portion of TSMC's annual revenue -- about 25.2%.

TSMC

And while TSMC does have a plant in Arizona, it wasn't until September 2024 that it began producing chips. In fact, TSMC's Fab 21 was beset with issues from the very start.

Unfortunately, TSMC's second Arizona plant seems to be facing similar issues. That's why most of TSMC's chips, including those in the Apple Silicon lineup, are still manufactured in Taiwan.

Samsung Display, based in South Korea, is the primary supplier of iPhone and iPad displays. Its production plants are based in China, Vietnam, and India.

Virtually every part of Apple's supply chain is tied to countries hit hard by the Trump Administration's tariff plan.

There is no 'pulling out' of China.

Some may ask why Apple doesn't just build its factories here; after all, the company has shown that it's at least somewhat amenable to the idea of putting factories on US soil. Presumably, that would solve all of this trade war business.

Amkor's headquarters in Arizona

There's a glaring problem behind that and one that likely cannot be solved easily, if at all.

For better or worse, Apple is primarily a provider of physical goods.

Sure, the tech giant has Apple Music, Apple TV+, Apple News, Apple Fitness+, the App Store -- any of the digital services that it provides. And yes, Services profits have been growing steadily in the past several years.

In 2024, Services accounted for 25% of Apple's $391 billion revenue -- not too shabby.

However, the iPhone still makes up 51% of that revenue, or $201.2 billion. And Mac, iPad, Apple Watch, HomePod, and AirPods make up 24% -- almost just as much as Services.

If Apple were suddenly unable to sell physical goods at a decent profit, it would be a devastating blow to the company. Possibly even one that it would not survive -- and that's before it attempted to build new factories in the U.S.

Dan Ives told CNN that it would take about $30 billion and three years for Apple to move its global supply chain back to American soil.

But with what money is it expected to do this -- the money from Services? That seems highly unlikely.

And even if Apple did manage to build these factories on a reasonable time scale with what money it could hurriedly scrape together, it would still need to solve its biggest problem: domestic labor.

Human beings screwing in little, little screws

In America, we, at least for the time being, have something called federal minimum wage. While you can certainly argue that it's not a living wage, it's still a wage that employees are guaranteed.

Foxconn pays the average factory worker somewhere around $3 per hour, and expects them to work for ten to twelve hours a day. That means the factory is paying each worker, on average, $30-$36 per day. There are some opportunities to earn overtime, but even still, the cost of labor is relatively cheap.

American factory workers who went in at federal minimum wage, which is $7.25 per hour, would receive $58 if they worked a full 8-hour day. If they were expected to work 10 to 12 hours each day, the factory would need to pay them an additional $21.76-$43.52 in overtime.

And, if these factory workers lived in one of the 34 states and territories that have state wages above federal minimum, it'd only get more expensive. Arizona, for instance, has a state-set minimum wage of $14.70, making an 8-hour day cost $117.60.

So, either the factory needs to compromise on hours or compromise on money. Of course, that assumes you'd get American workers into a factory for minimum wage.

No one in America is going to assemble iPhones for minimum wage. I'd be willing to bet you'd be hard-pressed to find someone willing to do it for $15 or $20 per hour.

Factory work is tedious, at best. It is relentless, brutally dangerous, and lonely at worst. Some of you who have been following Apple as a company for at least a decade or so probably remember the string of worker suicides that primarily took place in 2010.

And, culturally, East Asia expects quite a bit more out of their average worker. In 2021, Vietnamese workers were asked to live on-site to help prevent the spread of Covid-19. They slept in little tents on the floor of the factory.

Vietnamese factory workers slept on the floor in tents | Image Credit: Giang Son Dong/Giang Son Dong

Americans do not typically work jobs that see them doing the same task, in and out, for eight hours a day. This is not something our culture has normalized in the last several decades.

And, even when Henry Ford did it, workers didn't exactly love it either. And that's despite Ford paying wages well above what the average worker could expect elsewhere as part of his Five Dollar Day program.

At $7.25 per hour, you can easily find more gainful employment elsewhere. And even at $15, you can likely find the same employment working as a cashier in nearly any national chain grocery store.

And, odds are, you're probably not going to be asked to sleep on the floor of your local Aldi to prevent a temporary store closure.

Of course, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick recently and enthusiastically told CBS' Face the Nation that Americans would have "the greatest resurgence of jobs in the history of America to work on these high-tech factories, which are all coming to America."

He said that "the army of millions and millions of human beings screwing in little, little screws to make iPhones, that kind of thing is going to come to America." He then followed it up by saying, "It's going to be automated."

He then noted that the factories would need HVAC technicians, electricians, and tradespeople to help keep everything running smoothly. While that is true, it's putting the cart before the horse a bit.

Image Credit: iFixit

Currently, iPhone production and assembly are not automated much, if at all. And while Apple has plans to wade into automation, with the end goal of reducing the number of workers in factories by 50%, it's not there yet.

As it turns out, those little, little screws still need that army.

Factory work is hardly low skill

In America, we have the ugly habit of assuming all manual labor is low-skill. We tell our kids to do good in school and get a degree in college so they don't become ditch diggers -- and as the daughter of a one-time ditch digger, I take pretty big offense to that.

But you know who doesn't have that outlook? Tim Cook.

In 2018, Cook sat down with Fortune's Adam Lashinky to discuss why people shouldn't look at China-based labor as low-cost, but rather highly specialized. As it turns out, China has the U.S. beat in one key area: precision tooling.

Vocational training is not seen as taking the "lower path" in China, while many other countries have de-emphasized vocational trades. Because these trades are still considered worthwhile, China has a wealth of tooling engineers.

America, on the other hand, doesn't have that many. In fact, I didn't even know what a tooling engineer was, let alone how critical they are to product manufacturing until just now.

But there is someone who knows what tooling engineers are: Tim Cook.

Tim Cook visits Luxshare factory in 2017. Source: Apple

"The products we do require really advanced tooling. And the precision that you have to have in tooling and working with the materials that we do are state-of-the-art," Cook said in the interview. "And the tooling skill is very deep [in China]."

"In the U.S. you could have a meeting of tooling engineers and I'm not sure we could fill the room. In China you could fill multiple football fields."

Tooling engineers are highly specialized workers who fall somewhere between craftsmen and traditional mechanical and electrical engineers. It's very much an engineering job, but it's also a job that requires an eye for design and a keen sense of problem-solving.

It's also a very long educational process for just the training, much less the experience that Apple will need. This is literally a skill that will require a generation to fill in the quantity that Apple will need.

China has been honing this skill for decades to meet the demands of its trade partners. They aren't innate skills, aren't easily transferrable to robots, or are quickly taught to people who have no experience in manufacturing at the scale Apple needs.

And, China literally does not let them leave the country.

So, while it is possible that Apple could open factories in the United States, it's not as easy as telling Apple that it needs to do it soon. And it's certainly not made easier by jacking up the cost of materials now.

Even if it had the money to do so, and even if it got the workforce to agree to it, American factories would still manufacture products slower and at a lower quality, at least until Americans get an eye for this kind of manufacturing.

Even so, that doesn't change the fact that a domestically produced iPhone would likely be prohibitively expensive. I'm a bit skeptical that we'd see prices jump to $100,000 per iPhone, but $3000 is in the realm of possibility given 145% tariffs on China now, and the reality of US labor and the costs to build that capacity out going forward probably 10 years.

Apple will likely continue to increase manufacturing in the U.S. in the future, that's almost for certain. It is not a short-term thing, and if it happens at all, it will take probably six years at a minimum for low-yield high-defect production.

But, to answer the question: is Apple going to make the iPhone in America?

As Needham analyst Laura Martin aptly put it, "I don't think that is a thing."



Read on AppleInsider

Like a lot of people, I have an iPhone, an Apple Watch, and some AirPods -- and they all need to be charged. Normally, that means three cables and three AC outlets, but that doesn't have to be the case.

Satechi Q2 Trio review: There's something magical about charging three things at once.

Wireless charging stations have been around for a long time, and some of them are pretty great. With the launch of Qi2 in 2024, many of them have been refreshed with the upgraded spec -- including the Satechi Trio.

As the name suggests, this device can wirelessly charge three things simultaneously: an iPhone, an Apple Watch, and AirPods. It does it quickly, and dare I say, it does it in style to boot.

I've been testing the upgraded Satechi Qi2 Trio Wireless Charging Pad for a few weeks, so how did it stack up? Let's put it this way: I now have two free AC outlets, and I can finally use StandBy mode. Let me explain.

Satechi Qi2 Trio 3-in-1 Wireless Charging Pad review: Powered-up specs

You could be forgiven for thinking that all chargers are created equal, but you'd be very wrong. That's especially true when moving from a cable to a wireless charger.

Satechi Qi2 Trio review: Charge your iPhone using magnets or gravity, it's up to you

You can get a wireless charger for relatively little these days, but they'll charge incredibly slowly. Standard Qi chargers top out at 7.5W, which isn't a lot, whereas newer Qi2 chargers double that to 15W.

The Qi2 Trio, predictably, supports the newer Qi2 standard, adding magnets to the specification. If that sounds like MagSafe, it should -- Qi2 is based on it.

The result is that this wireless charger can charge your iPhone almost as quickly as it can when using the cable that comes in the box. You're still going to want to use that cable if speed is of the essence, though.

The Qi2 Trio can even fast-charge modern Apple Watches, too. If you have an Apple Watch Series 7 or newer, it'll charge at 5W, just like Apple's charging puck.

That's a relatively new addition for third-party chargers, and it's a welcome one, especially for sleep trackers like me. I throw my Apple Watch Series 10 on the charger before I have a shower, and it's always full when I need it.

Finally, we get to the AirPods charger, which also reaches 5W. That's as fast as an AirPods charging case can go, so that's pretty standard fare.

The Qi2 Trio holds your Apple Watch vertically so you can use Nightstand Mode. That has the added benefit of meaning you don't need to remove any bands when charging.

Next, your AirPods sit flat on their back on the charging pad to the right of your Apple Watch. Things get more interesting when we get to the iPhone charger.

Powering your iPhone presents two options: either charge it flat on its back or extend a metal arm that holds it in the air. Choose the latter, and the iPhone can be in any orientation you like, too.

This, of course, means that StandBy Mode is supported. If you have an iPhone with an always-on display, that's doubly cool.

Even without the always-on component, StandBy Mode turns your iPhone into a futuristic alarm clock -- and the Qi2 Trio makes it all possible.

It goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway: you can charge all three devices simultaneously. And Satechi includes a 45W USB-C adapter and cable in the box.

As for the industrial design, Satechi uses a premium-grade aluminum enclosure that makes everything feel solid. The heft just makes it feel like a quality bit of kit, which doesn't hurt.

Satechi Qi2 Trio 3-in-1 Wireless Charging Pad review: Compatible devices

You'll need to have a compatible device to use this charger, but the chances are good that you do.

All iPhone 12 or newer models support MagSafe and, by extension, will work just fine with all Qi2 chargers.

Satechi Qi2 Trio review: It doesn't look much, but this charger has it all.

All Apple Watches will charge when using the Qi2 Trio. However, you need an Apple Watch Series 7 or newer to benefit from the fastest charging speeds.

Any AirPods with a wireless charging case are good to go here. In the current lineup, that means AirPods Pro 2 and AirPods 4 (ANC) can be charged wirelessly.

As for future models, future iPhones will likely work just fine thanks to the Qi2 standard. The same can likely be said for AirPods, although future models might support faster charging that the Qi2 Trio can't match.

The Apple Watch could be the outlier here, unfortunately. If Apple chooses to use a new wireless charging system in the future, you might need a new charger to go with it.

Satechi Qi2 Trio 3-in-1 Wireless Charging Pad review: It's time to ditch those cables

As I said at the top of this review, I've been using the Satechi Qi2 Trio for a few weeks now. And it had pride of place on my bedside table until recently.

The only reason it's no longer there? My wife claimed it because she was tired of losing her Apple Watch and iPhone cables down the side of the bed.

That, right there, tells a story that will no doubt resonate with plenty of people reading this. You just cannot beat the convenience of just putting your stuff down and watching it charge.

Add in the fact that the charging pad opens the door to Nightstand Mode and Standby Mode, and it's a winner for me. The fact that it charges so quickly is the icing on the cake.

I'd heartily recommend the Satechi Qi2 Trio Wireless Charging Pad, especially if you can find it at a discount. Its usual $130 price isn't bad considering it comes with a 45W adapter in the box, but it ain't cheap.

Satechi Qi2 Trio 3-in-1 Wireless Charging Pad review: Pros

• Unbeatable convenience


• As fast as wireless chargers get


• You'll get some cables and outlets back


• The metal construction oozes quality

Satechi Qi2 Trio 3-in-1 Wireless Charging Pad review: Cons

• $100 might be too much for some


• Question marks over future Apple Watch compatibility


• It's so good, yours might be "borrowed" by your spouse

Rating: 4 out of 5

Where to buy the Satechi Qi2 Trio

You can buy the Satechi Qi2 Trio Wireless Charging Pad from Amazon for $99.99. You can also buy it directly from Satechi's website, but you'll pay $30 more if you do.



Read on AppleInsider