4 ms·
The catch-22 is that Apple shoehorned substantial complexity into the charger, to make it and associated cables/connectors very lightweight, while still support
by westbywest 10y ago
The catch-22 is that Apple shoehorned substantial complexity into the charger, to make it and associated cables/connectors very lightweight, while still supporting batteries with very high power density. Compare the article's photos of the PCB, etc, of the Apple product and the cheap knock-off, both of which have to squeeze into the same plastic housing. That complexity costs money. Trimming out complexity generally means trimming out safety features (which already are possibly insufficient, considering some of the other responses on this thread).
- larrybud 10y agoI agree; complexity costs money. But I guess I'm wondering if there is still a lot of profit margin built into the cost of the apple charger that could be shaved by a decent third-party such as Monoprice. Take lightning cables: I can buy the Apple lightning cable for $25, or I can buy a perfectly good Monoprice, MFi-certified lightning cable for $7, or I can buy a no name, non-certified cable (that will likely have issues) for a buck or two on ebay.
- westbywest 10y agoI would expect any 3rd party manufacturer seeking to replicate the safety margins of Apple's own power adapters may ultimately find it difficult to produce a competitive alternative, once you factor in costs of NDAs with Apple and such. (Apple likely works to ensure it stays this way.) Cables are passive, USB chargers are generally low wattage, while the Macbook adapters have active regulation, plus higher power ratings.