GG1

mikethemartian said:

I would think one of the main issues with a product like this is that it would just waste quite a bit of energy. It seems like it sends the EM radiation in a omnidirectional manner as a typical light bulb does. Only the EM flux that passes through the cross section of the collector (which I assume is a coil) provides useful power. The rest will just scatter and be absorbed by the surroundings.

It looks like their charging scheme is a lot better (more efficient) than a "space heater" radiator.

Their product page (http://http//www.energous.com/technology/receivers/) says this:

"WattUp® uses pocket-forming technology to accurately direct energy to the receiver. The technology dynamically adjusts the shape and content of the RF waves so they can be directed to a specific location in 3D space. (my emphasis) There, the energy is gathered by the receiver’s special antennas where WattUp® ASICs convert the RF signal to DC current, delivering a charge to the battery."

To me, this implies some sort of steerable (transmit) antenna, although "pocket-forming" means nothing to me. Their software technology page touts a highly configurable system of charging multiple devices at different power levels (and 3D locations), so there must be some micro-location method (beacons?) to tell the transmitter the device's exact 3D location. Of course, I could be reading too much into this.

I couldn't find what happens if you move the device during charging. Will it stop charging? Will the system redirect the charging signal dynamically as the device is moved?

foggyhill said:

rogifan_new said:

techno said:

This is where the watch takes a very important path. With more FDA approved devices like this, the value of the Apple Watch significantly improves for the non-fanboys.

I’m still a bit confused how this is utilizing the Watch. Could they just make a band that communicated with your phone? I think these things will be a tough sell if they add another $200 to the price of an Apple Watch. Unless they’re subsidized by your health insurance company.

Medical devices are very expensive and you'd be surprised how much any one who actually needs it will pay for them.

Devices that otherwise should cost $100 bucks cost $1000 if they are "FDA approved", so $200 is no biggie.

This is an area ripe for disruption. Apple taking care of the data management / display / storage means those medical device makers could concentrate on something they're actually good at (the medical aspect) and not everything else, which they are undoubtedly they are not.

Exactly. Besides the high cost for FDA approval, there is also the long approval time required. Niche medical companies can thrive in this (Apple Watch) environment. These medical "accessories" aren't quickly or easily copied.

I thought CurrentC used a direct connection to your bank account (to avoid credit card fees).

Is WalmartPay the same way?

I just checked here. Yes, Walmart know about you and your bank account. Seems like WalmartPay is just CurrentC warmed over.

Thankfully, Apple take financial security and privacy seriously.

bb-15 said:

StrangeDays said:

mr. h said:

larryjw said:

I attach zero importance to the 5W charger. That might be an issue for first time Apple buyers, but everyone else has a drawer filled with Apple chargers. Apple put a minimal charger in because they know anything more is unnecessary. 

This makes no sense. Having a drawer full of Apple chargers doesn't make your new 5 W charger charge the iPhone X any faster.

The point is, the iPhone X can be charged at a much faster rate than the included 5 W adaptor is capable of. For very little incremental cost (to Apple), Apple could include a more powerful charger. Given the high retail price of the iPhone X, I agree that it just seems mean-spirited of Apple to not include a more powerful adaptor.

It’s not actually much faster. Gruber timed the 8 with the 29-watt charged compared to the iphone 7 without fast charging. At thirty minutes the fast charging was 54% charged while the iphone 7 had it at 43%. That’s nothing to get excited about. 

https://daringfireball.net/2017/09/the_iphones_8

Reviewing all the complaints about this; 
1. Apple including the 5W charger with the iPhone X was considered a flaw in the First Look article. 
- While some claim an extreme pro Apple bias in the article; this criticism of Apple in the article shows no evidence of that.
- I agree that selling the 5W charger with the iPhone X was an oversight on Apple's part. 
2. Should a person pay for and use the 29-watt Apple charger for the iPhone X? I wouldn't.
Tests (from AppleInsider & BGR) have shown that the very common 12W iPad charger is very close to the 29W charger in terms of speed. (The 12W iPad charger is also much cheaper.)

http://appleinsider.com/articles/17/10/02/comparing-iphone-8-charging-speeds-with-fast-charge-wireless-and-more

http://bgr.com/2017/10/10/iphone-8-charging-speeds-fast-charging-iphone-x/

I've got extra 12W iPad chargers. Those are the ones I would use when I eventually get an iPhone X (or XI) later next year.  

I use the Griffin Power Block (2.1 amps/11W) charger, and it charges noticeably faster than the 5 watter (I didn't do any timing comparisons).

And now you say (or someone says) that the 12 watter's charging time is close to the 29 watter, so we can reasonably estimate that Apple limit the max charging current to a bit over 2 amps. I picked the Griffin so I can carry one charger for both iPhone and iPad when traveling internationally, and it works great.

Apple (as well as others) limit the max charging current to protect the battery from heat buildup (bad things happen with heat, such as swelling batteries or explosion), so even if you have a 100W charger, your phone won't be able to take advantage of the higher available power.

Edit: removed reference to Amazon pricing.

1STnTENDERBITS said:

gregg thurman said:

GG1 said:

k2kw said:

Soli said:

I don't see how this ends well for Qualcomm.

It might end with Apple only making GSM phones I.e. ATT and T-Mobile in USA next year

The problem is that Qualcomm make the best chips for CDMA2000, they own the IP, and CDMA2000 is still in widespread use in the USA (Verizon and Sprint) and a few other countries. But CDMA2000's days are numbered with LTE set to eventually overtake it. When? I don't know. Maybe as long as 10 years in the US.

When that day happens, Intel and others can effectively ignore CDMA2000 support in baseband chips (and the majority of Qualcomm IP issues). Or maybe it takes someone like Apple to move that date up with Apple-designed UMTS/LTE-only baseband chips in future iPhones. Add in Samsung's Exynos baseband chips (which I don't believe support CDMA2000), and together their smartphone volume may push the carriers to LTE faster.

As Soli pointed out, the Apple Watch only works on UMTS/LTE (both GSM-based), but Verizon and Sprint already have (some) LTE support, so the AW works there. Maybe Apple are already pushing for LTE-only adoption starting with the AW?

LTE is designed to eliminate dual networks. Completion of 5G implementation will be the end of CDMA. 

Guess who's leading that 5G revolution?  Qualcomm.

You do realize that 5G is being developed by an alliance (not a single company) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Generation_Mobile_Networks), so no matter how much Qualcomm lead it, 5G won't be "owned" by Qualcomm. CDMA2000 was developed and owned/licensed by Qualcomm alone. GSM/UMTS/LTE were also developed by an alliance.

On a different note, Qualcomm must know that the sunset for CDMA2000 is near, so why continue to be so arrogant with licensing? Qualcomm should be loosening licensing fees to get more customers onboard with their Snapdragon chipsets for 5G and beyond. After CDMA2000 sunsets, Qualcomm will be competing with Intel/Samsung/Mediatek/others more directly.