OctoMonkey

AppleZulu said:

Pancake said:

foregoneconclusion said:

It only takes a few minutes to get 8-9 hours of charge using the port on the bottom. The complaints about the location were always inane. 

100%. It’s never been an issue for me. The BENEFIT of the charging port being in the bottom is nothing ever gets stuck in there. If it was on the back or front you wild over time get dirt, skin and lint stuck in the port. 

What's hilarious to me is that the critics seem to think that the placement of the charging port is either some kind of mistake or a form-over-function decision to not have a visible hole mucking up the sleek design.

The  reality is that the port was put on the bottom of the mouse quite intentionally, because it's a wireless mouse, and Ive didn't want users to leave it plugged in, using it as if it were a wired mouse. The OG Magic Mouse had to be flipped over to swap out the batteries. It doesn't take much longer than that maneuver to get a day's charge on the rechargeable one. 

It's not hard to imagine the next iteration won't have a port at all, and will simply charge via a watch charger and/or an iPhone MagSafe wireless charger. You won't be able to use it while it's charging that way, either. Whatever will people do?

dewme said:

Yet again a clever proof of concept. He’s basically created a “magic shoe” for the Magic Mouse that allows the mouse to be used while charging. It works. But it’s pretty obvious from the implementation why Apple never chose to go down this path. It’s design and aesthetics are okay from a mouse-in-a-shoe perspective, but Apple (at least with Jony Ive at the helm of the design team) would never have allowed this to be labeled as an Apple product. It’s too large, bulky, and reminiscent of mouse designs you can get from many other vendors for $29.99.

Whether you liked Jony’s approach or not, he always stuck to his guns and saw that his vision for a product met his design and aesthetic goals. Anything that deviated too far from what he envisioned was seen as a failure. One can argue that what comes across as a single-minded and arguably narrow focus on the primary functionality, like using the device and how it feels in the hand, led to functional compromises when it came to ancillary functionality, like charging the device. The Magic Mouse is imo pleasant and efficient to use, but yeah, there is no getting over the clunky recharging scenario. The rationale must have been something like “you obviously only recharge the device while you’re not using it.” This makes perfect sense only until it doesn’t.

tht said:

OctoMonkey said:

Wesley Hilliard said:

bigcountry said:

So... what good does this do when most iPhone owners have their phone in a case that has very poor thermal conductivity?

Getting the heat off of the battery and the processor is the first priority. After that, it's not that big an issue. The graphene heat sink is more important for getting heat away from critical components, which will be more efficient than what's there now.

That is only beneficial in the (very) short term...  until whatever you are pumping the heat into approaches thermal equilibrium with the component(s) you are attempting to cool.  That heat has to go somewhere and if the phone is held in a case with poor thermal conductivity, the heat inside the case has nowhere to go (quickly).

I suspect the ideal solution would be the screen.  It has a large surface area and there is rarely anything more than an ultra-thin screen protector and when in use is usually exposed to air.  Perhaps DOW (or whoever Apple uses) can develop a super tough glass screen which also has high thermal conductivity.

Yup. 

It’s turtles all the way down. Probably not using the analogy correctly, but the graphene isn’t a heatsink. It does a great job transferring heat. So, heat source, transfer heat to the next thing, that next thing transfers heat to the next thing, so on and so forth, until you get to space. 

For handhelds like a phone, the big turtle is your hand, and the phone can’t get too hot for your skin. So, that ultimately limits how many Watts the SoC can consume, which is going to be able 4 to 5 Watts sustained. 

Apple uses graphene in the MBA already. It’s the black sheet glued to the metal sheet that covers the logic board. There is thermal paste between it and the SoC, and what looks to be insulation between it and the NAND and other packages. 

Armchair YouTubers love to shade Apple with their thermal MBA pad mods, showing that they can get more performance. But all they have done is concentrated the heat to spot in the bottom, increasing burn risks. 

If Apple is using graphene in iPhones, and I thought they already were, what they are trying to do is the spread the heat across as much of the surface area of the phone as possible, reducing hot spots. 

kellie said:

Apple needs to develop a back that isn’t made entirely of glass.  Glass is a poor conductor of heat.  Apple needs to improve software efficiency of the OS and the their apps.  Fewer cycles equals less heat.  Improve their cases to an increase thermal transfer.  Air vents Or strategically located metal surfaces to transfer heat and act as a radiator.  Adjust consumer expectations.  You can only put so much processing power in an unventilated tiny space.  Apple should have been able to identify the iPhone 15 heat issues long before they started selling it.  The class action lawyers are already working on a new case. 

Wesley Hilliard said:

bigcountry said:

So... what good does this do when most iPhone owners have their phone in a case that has very poor thermal conductivity?

Getting the heat off of the battery and the processor is the first priority. After that, it's not that big an issue. The graphene heat sink is more important for getting heat away from critical components, which will be more efficient than what's there now.