5 ms·
> People seriously underestimate both the current economic efficacy of existing lithium ion batteries, as well as the continuous and seemingly inexorable improv
by coronadisaster 6y ago
> People seriously underestimate both the current economic efficacy of existing lithium ion batteries, as well as the continuous and seemingly inexorable improvement in costs.
Maybe because the cost of devices have skyrocketed and the battery dont last any longer... And in addition to that, you can no longer replace batteries.
- hwillis 6y agoHow are people STILL repeating this? Does anyone actually remember what phones used to be like? Because I can stream videos for hours and listen to music all day for multiple days before I run out, and I still remember my iphone 3 dying in 6 hours playing music that was already on the device. The iphone 11 has a 3110 mAh battery. The iphone 3 had 1220 mAh. I don't even remember the last time my phone died on me unexpectedly.
- coronadisaster 6y agoI used to charge once a day (10 years ago), and I still do because my phone can't last 2 full days on a full charge... but it does last about 1.5 days ... it is not an iphone 11 but it is still an $800 phone
- xbmcuser 6y agoThe number of hours you spend and what you do on your phone today compared to 10 years ago is also not the same.
- coronadisaster 6y agoTrue, but the hardware also uses a lot less power then it used to.
- hwillis 6y agoThat's not true in the slightest. Energy per instruction varies a lot but has not decreased that much on recent nodes. The resistance growth just outpaces the shrinking capacitance of the gates. On top of that processors are faster, applications and sites are hugely more intensive to render, and the hardware (mainly antennas) suck up much more energy. The ARM11 in the iphone 3 used <1 watt. The A13 in the iphone 11 uses 6 watts.
- jabl 6y agoBack when I had a basic phone I charged it roughly once per week. But of course modern smartphones do a lot more, and I spend lots more time with my smartphone as well.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- xbmcuser 6y agoSo far with every upgrade they have added features like more powerful processors and power hungry higher density screens. So most people haven't noticed the improvements in battery tech. Now I think phones have reached a point where I don't see many power hungry improvements going forward so we might start seeing longer lasting phones.
- ksec 6y ago> power hungry higher density screens. That is not exactly true. OLED can be very efficient. Not just in Dark Mode, but you need to be aware of those pitfalls and optimise for it. Since in overall package the Display is roughly the same power but you get much better quality. Not to mention there are at least 3 - 5 years roadmap of technology in the pipeline that makes it even more energy efficient and thinner. ( Thinner equals potential for larger battery )
- xbmcuser 6y agoThe higher density screen might need to require less power but the power to display on them used by the graphics etc is a lot higher. we were on 320x640 screen now we are at 3840 x 2160. Even if the individual pixel takes less power the number of pixel has gone up a huge amount.
- gonzo41 6y agoYou're right and wrong. People buy iphones despite the cost and lack of user serviceable battery. They are a luxury item and a way to signal status. If people stopped buying iphones due to battery life then Apple may change. But Apple has a strong brand and the status of the item is important to people so they act against their own interests and pay lots of cash rather than use a $100 dollar android that's 90% as good. Batteries aren't a feature to most people. Also there's lots to be said about the scope of what most 'phones' do these days. The batteries are powering serious computers rather than just phones.
- coronadisaster 6y agoYes computers are more powerful but they are also more efficient
- kerkeslager 6y agoThis comment has a pet-peeve of mine, which is using the word "efficient" where it's unclear what the cost and benefit are. Efficiency is just cost per benefit, so it's not a very meaningful word if you don't know what the cost and benefit are. I don't think you're wrong, I just am not entirely clear on what claim you're making. I'll venture based on context that the cost you're talking about is either electrical charge or time, but it's very unclear what benefit you're talking about.
- kergonath 6y agoNot the OP, but they compute things both faster and using less energy, so that’s an increase in efficiency on both counts.
- kiba 6y agoMaybe? Tesla's working on a million mile battery suggests to me that battery lifespan will start to dramatically improves.
- coronadisaster 6y agoWill Teslas become cost effective at that point?
- ctdonath 6y agoI just ran numbers for Tesla Cybertruck. Depending on gas vs electricity prices, a "Tri FSD" CT, built to million-mile specifications, will pay for itself on gas savings by 0.5-1.5M miles. I think "free truck" operated to design specifications constitutes cost effective.
- coronadisaster 6y agoToo bad you can't buy one...
- SEJeff 6y ago*yet
- coronadisaster 6y agoYou can buy nuclear cars yet either...
- SEJeff 6y agoNo one is actively trying to build nuclear cars however. Additionally, no one has a prototype nuclear car, because that is a stupid and very dangerous idea. There is a prototype cybertruck, and Tesla is about to announce the location for the factory to build them. It will be either Tulsa, OK or just outside of Austin, TX.