robjn

Zelder said:

I find this article strange. Apple Watch 3 does support the Qi standard - at least in theory. Hardwarewise it does, but why has Apple blocked regular chargers? I got my Samsung Qi charger to work for a few seconds when I used a magnet to trick the watch, but after 10 seconds or so the charging stops.

No good reason that AW3 shouldn’t work with all qi chargers, unless Apple wanted it that way. Noe they want to profit by launching a superior charging mat. It will be better. Apple likes to do it this way. Not a surprise.

I can’t get my head around this article.

You might be able to trick the watch into ‘thinking’ it’s on it’s charger for a few seconds before it realizes it is not - that does not prove it was actually charging or that it has hardware support for Qi.

It’s amusing that Samsung sets these videos in an Apple Store. Of course Samsung has very few stores - the very fact that Apple has stores people can go to for help is a big reason to buy their stuff.

“Devices put anywhere on the plate communicate their location on the pad”

I shouldn’t think this would be necessary and how would the device measure it’s location relative to the pad? How would it communicate it’s location if it is turned off or has a completely dead battery? The pad should be able to search for a find the location of the devices using nothing more than the flux generators themselves by looking at changes in resistance or something.

So for the HomePod test there was just two trained listeners from their staff.

I’m a professionally trained listener. I conduct acoustic testing every week. It’s true that despite having all the test equipment in the world the human ear is still an important test in some situations.

Never-the-less, no amount of training can eliminate the highly subjective, and personally biased nature of human listening - it comes down to the fact that everyone is anatomically different in terms of the way the bones in their head respond to sound and the degree of hearing loss they have at various frequencies. There’s also big psychological elements.

They report that they test everything with the same Jazz CD and this certainly adds consistency across tests but when the human brain is hearing music it knows well it can trick the listener by automatically filling in the gaps and making the person ‘hear’ what they expect to hear even though the speaker might not be reproducing certain elements well.

The scientific test equipment we have picks up problems the human ear cannot easily discern.

In my opinion these tests should lean heavily toward actual measurements and away from human listening. The published results should clearly distinguish between the two.

Operating loss of 41 million euros!

This business is mature enough that it should be profitable. They have grown a large subscriber base and yet they make no profit. It’s hard to see how further growth in subscribers can turn things around.

At best, this business model will only generate very small profits.