7 ms·

Probably they think they can make the jump to a completely wireless phone before any USB-C mandates come in. Apple's timing with the lighting port wasn't great

Probably they think they can make the jump to a completely wireless phone before any USB-C mandates come in. Apple's timing with the lighting port wasn't great, with it arriving just before USB-C, and I imagine they're very reluctant to change the port on their phones because people already have lightning cables everywhere. Personally I would love to see USB-C on my iPhone, but I look at my parents, and having the port change for them would be a pain in the arse. All their cables are lightning cables, they don't have any USB-C devices, and ofcourse, all of their cables are the ones that came in the box. I suspect a significant portion of Apple's customers fall into that category.

amelius 5y ago
> Probably they think they can make the jump to a completely wireless phone before any USB-C mandates come in. What is the efficiency of wireless charging?
- avianlyric 5y ago
  I'm not advocating for wireless charging, I'm simply answering the question posed.
- iSnow 5y ago
  Not great, but better than I personally expected: "Inductive charging is not as efficient as direct charging [...] An analysis of energy use found that charging a Pixel 4 from 0 to 100 percent on a classic cable used 14.26 Wh (watt-hours), while doing so with a wireless charger took 21.01 Wh, a 47 percent increase. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_charging https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_charging Of course problems like heating up the battery and the huge amount of power needed if everyone does it remain.
  - avianlyric 5y ago
    I did some maths (which maybe some should double check), but for an iPhone with a 12 wh battery. Doing a complete charge cycle everyday would consume an extra 5.6kwh over a year! Far more than I expected.
    - maccard 5y ago
      or $0.70 per year at current energy prices.
      - zatarc 5y ago
        Germany: hold my beer! 1.78€ or $2.09 But thats not point here. Everyone is talking about the climate change and then we want to charge millions or billions of phones with ~50% extra power? Good idea!
        maccard 5y ago
        In absolute terms it's nothing though. An average household uses 4000 kWh of electricity in the UK (less than half of the average us household), so saving the 5kWh on 4 phones is a 0.5% saving, which is roughly equivalent to running your home boiler for 10 minutes per year. Turning off your thermostat for one evening would have the equivalent impact of not using a wireless charger for a century.
        throw0101a 5y ago
        > In absolute terms it's nothing though. Symbols can hold power though.
        maccard 5y ago
        Do we not have enough symbols? Plastic bags, domestic recycling, plastic straws are all strong "symbols" and yet we're still fighting about a couple of kWh rather than making any meaningful change.
        swebs 5y ago
        Sure, as long as the electricity doesn't come from fossil fuels. Why not?
  - InsomniacL 5y ago
    "900 million active iphones in use" - CFO Luca Maestri 14.26 Wh * 900000000 * 365 (days) = 4684 GWh/yr 46% = 2154 GWh/yr wasted energy That's about the total energy output of Madagascar with a population of 27 million people. There's a lot of reasons why the above numbers are wrong but I just wanted to highlight that at current efficiency, there would be a lot of wasted energy. :)
    - saddlerustle 5y ago
      Thats about the energy demand of a single small aluminium smelter
    - elzbardico 5y ago
      not exactly a lot of energy in the big scheme of things
      - jopsen 5y ago
        Yeah, it's not so much efficiency.. phones don't have that big batteries anyways. I would be more concerned about charging speed and heating. Inefficiency implies heating :) And wow, do I love charging my phone using my laptops USB-C charger.. it's just so fast! I don't really see the appeal of wireless charging. Faster direct charging would be a bigger win, IMO.
- llampx 5y ago
  It is terrible, adds heat and is worse for the environment. See any long-term review of the Magsafe wireless external stick-on battery for the iPhone.
- dbbk 5y ago
  I see a lot of comments suggesting that Apple want to go fully wireless but it makes no practical sense to me. Their MagSafe charger not only charges far slower (as of now), but it's also huge. It's just not practical to ask someone to carry that around with them or take it when they go travelling.
  - amelius 5y ago
    Also, next time EU will rephrase their law such that every device should really use the same charger (whether wired or wireless).
- Kirby64 5y ago
  An interesting point to think about is that MagSafe appears to be about 75% efficient (due to alignment of coils from the magnets), but also the battery size on iPhones tends to be much smaller than competitor phones. For example, Samsung S21 uses a 4000mAh battery. iPhone 12 Pro uses a 2700mAh battery. At 75% efficiency, it's effectively like charging a 3600mAh battery. Both likely get a full charge every day. So, even with less efficient charging, you come out ahead vs. a Samsung device. That's also assuming efficiency of the actual charging bricks is similar. Apple tends to be known for high quality and efficient charger bricks, so it wouldn't surprise me if that has an impact.
  - amelius 5y ago
    Still, throwing away 25% electricity because "minor convenience" is not such a great idea.
    - Kirby64 5y ago
      Sure, but let's say efficiency comes up to closer to like 85-90%, which should be achievable. Would you suggest that it's still not worthwhile? You'd never need to worry about damaging your charging port, since everything is now solid-state. I know a few folks that moved to exclusively wireless charging because they broke the USB port on their phones over the years.
oaiey 5y ago
Good luck believing that the next regulation in that spirit will not target wireless charging. The motivation on this regulation is the waste produced by endless stream of chargers. wired or not, does not make a difference in that thinking. But it will give them some years.
- dfcowell 5y ago
  iPhones are already compatible with iQ charging, the dominant standard for this kind of thing.
  - p49k 5y ago
    Only at the slow 7.5W speed. Despite the fact that MagSafe follows the 15W Qi standard, the iPhone will only charge at 15W with a MagSafe-branded device. If Apple, for example placed both a USB-C and lightning port on future phones, but the charge speed of the USB was crippled, I’d argue that they wouldn’t be compliant with the EU regulation.
  - adamors 5y ago
    But you cannot use a Qi charger for the Apple Watch.
onion2k 5y ago
I suspect a significant portion of Apple's customers fall into that category. Existing customers, yes. Apple are probably trying to grow their market share though, which means they also need to consider those people who have usb cables too.
GuB-42 5y ago
Wireless charging is terrible from an energy efficiency standpoint. Considering that the standardization effort is supposed to be for the environment, and that includes energy efficiency requirements for chargers, I don't think switching to a less efficient charging method will be looked over kindly. But it is Apple, who knows what they are going to do to avoid regulation.
sildur 5y ago
That won't work. They will have to include an USB-C port, wireless charging or not.
- cbo100 5y ago
  So due to the EU we will never have a port less phone of any brand? That doesn’t sound right either.
  - dbbk 5y ago
    A portless phone is not a good idea anyway.
    - cbo100 5y ago
      That’s beside the point. (And people said the same about headphone jacks, but look at them now) Should a government be able to dictate the feature set of a class of devices?
      - dbbk 5y ago
        Yes they do it all the time
aaaaaaaaaaab 5y ago
How do you use a phone while charging it wirelessly?
- Scoundreller 5y ago
  I think some automotive holsters do this so you’re not plugging/unplugging it, but still using it for nav/music/handsfree calls. Which is even more of a waste given the inefficiency of wireless charging and the kWh cost of electricity in an ICE.
- rblatz 5y ago
  Magnets
gumby 5y ago
> Apple's timing with the lighting port wasn't great, with it arriving just before USB-C, and I imagine they're very reluctant to change the port on their phones because people already have lightning cables everywhere. Apple was on the USB-design committee (and lightning experience informed the design) and knew all the timing. The standard wasn’t even finalized for quite some time after Apple started shipping lightning. Lightning has now been around longer than the 30-pin connector, I really don’t understand Apple’s reluctance. I go of my way to by Type C devices for simplicity’s sake, though still have to travel with micro-A, Type C, lightning, and a special watch charger, grr. At least I have only one type of power brick.

amelius 5y ago

> Probably they think they can make the jump to a completely wireless phone before any USB-C mandates come in. What is the efficiency of wireless charging?

avianlyric 5y ago
I'm not advocating for wireless charging, I'm simply answering the question posed.
iSnow 5y ago
Not great, but better than I personally expected: "Inductive charging is not as efficient as direct charging [...] An analysis of energy use found that charging a Pixel 4 from 0 to 100 percent on a classic cable used 14.26 Wh (watt-hours), while doing so with a wireless charger took 21.01 Wh, a 47 percent increase. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_charging https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_charging Of course problems like heating up the battery and the huge amount of power needed if everyone does it remain.
- avianlyric 5y ago
  I did some maths (which maybe some should double check), but for an iPhone with a 12 wh battery. Doing a complete charge cycle everyday would consume an extra 5.6kwh over a year! Far more than I expected.
  - maccard 5y ago
    or $0.70 per year at current energy prices.
    - zatarc 5y ago
      Germany: hold my beer! 1.78€ or $2.09 But thats not point here. Everyone is talking about the climate change and then we want to charge millions or billions of phones with ~50% extra power? Good idea!
      - maccard 5y ago
        In absolute terms it's nothing though. An average household uses 4000 kWh of electricity in the UK (less than half of the average us household), so saving the 5kWh on 4 phones is a 0.5% saving, which is roughly equivalent to running your home boiler for 10 minutes per year. Turning off your thermostat for one evening would have the equivalent impact of not using a wireless charger for a century.
        throw0101a 5y ago
        > In absolute terms it's nothing though. Symbols can hold power though.
        maccard 5y ago
        Do we not have enough symbols? Plastic bags, domestic recycling, plastic straws are all strong "symbols" and yet we're still fighting about a couple of kWh rather than making any meaningful change.
      - swebs 5y ago
        Sure, as long as the electricity doesn't come from fossil fuels. Why not?
- InsomniacL 5y ago
  "900 million active iphones in use" - CFO Luca Maestri 14.26 Wh * 900000000 * 365 (days) = 4684 GWh/yr 46% = 2154 GWh/yr wasted energy That's about the total energy output of Madagascar with a population of 27 million people. There's a lot of reasons why the above numbers are wrong but I just wanted to highlight that at current efficiency, there would be a lot of wasted energy. :)
  - saddlerustle 5y ago
    Thats about the energy demand of a single small aluminium smelter
  - elzbardico 5y ago
    not exactly a lot of energy in the big scheme of things
    - jopsen 5y ago
      Yeah, it's not so much efficiency.. phones don't have that big batteries anyways. I would be more concerned about charging speed and heating. Inefficiency implies heating :) And wow, do I love charging my phone using my laptops USB-C charger.. it's just so fast! I don't really see the appeal of wireless charging. Faster direct charging would be a bigger win, IMO.
llampx 5y ago
It is terrible, adds heat and is worse for the environment. See any long-term review of the Magsafe wireless external stick-on battery for the iPhone.
dbbk 5y ago
I see a lot of comments suggesting that Apple want to go fully wireless but it makes no practical sense to me. Their MagSafe charger not only charges far slower (as of now), but it's also huge. It's just not practical to ask someone to carry that around with them or take it when they go travelling.
- amelius 5y ago
  Also, next time EU will rephrase their law such that every device should really use the same charger (whether wired or wireless).
Kirby64 5y ago
An interesting point to think about is that MagSafe appears to be about 75% efficient (due to alignment of coils from the magnets), but also the battery size on iPhones tends to be much smaller than competitor phones. For example, Samsung S21 uses a 4000mAh battery. iPhone 12 Pro uses a 2700mAh battery. At 75% efficiency, it's effectively like charging a 3600mAh battery. Both likely get a full charge every day. So, even with less efficient charging, you come out ahead vs. a Samsung device. That's also assuming efficiency of the actual charging bricks is similar. Apple tends to be known for high quality and efficient charger bricks, so it wouldn't surprise me if that has an impact.
- amelius 5y ago
  Still, throwing away 25% electricity because "minor convenience" is not such a great idea.
  - Kirby64 5y ago
    Sure, but let's say efficiency comes up to closer to like 85-90%, which should be achievable. Would you suggest that it's still not worthwhile? You'd never need to worry about damaging your charging port, since everything is now solid-state. I know a few folks that moved to exclusively wireless charging because they broke the USB port on their phones over the years.

oaiey 5y ago

Good luck believing that the next regulation in that spirit will not target wireless charging. The motivation on this regulation is the waste produced by endless stream of chargers. wired or not, does not make a difference in that thinking. But it will give them some years.

dfcowell 5y ago
iPhones are already compatible with iQ charging, the dominant standard for this kind of thing.
- p49k 5y ago
  Only at the slow 7.5W speed. Despite the fact that MagSafe follows the 15W Qi standard, the iPhone will only charge at 15W with a MagSafe-branded device. If Apple, for example placed both a USB-C and lightning port on future phones, but the charge speed of the USB was crippled, I’d argue that they wouldn’t be compliant with the EU regulation.
- adamors 5y ago
  But you cannot use a Qi charger for the Apple Watch.

onion2k 5y ago

I suspect a significant portion of Apple's customers fall into that category. Existing customers, yes. Apple are probably trying to grow their market share though, which means they also need to consider those people who have usb cables too.

GuB-42 5y ago

Wireless charging is terrible from an energy efficiency standpoint. Considering that the standardization effort is supposed to be for the environment, and that includes energy efficiency requirements for chargers, I don't think switching to a less efficient charging method will be looked over kindly. But it is Apple, who knows what they are going to do to avoid regulation.

sildur 5y ago

That won't work. They will have to include an USB-C port, wireless charging or not.

cbo100 5y ago
So due to the EU we will never have a port less phone of any brand? That doesn’t sound right either.
- dbbk 5y ago
  A portless phone is not a good idea anyway.
  - cbo100 5y ago
    That’s beside the point. (And people said the same about headphone jacks, but look at them now) Should a government be able to dictate the feature set of a class of devices?
    - dbbk 5y ago
      Yes they do it all the time

aaaaaaaaaaab 5y ago

How do you use a phone while charging it wirelessly?

Scoundreller 5y ago
I think some automotive holsters do this so you’re not plugging/unplugging it, but still using it for nav/music/handsfree calls. Which is even more of a waste given the inefficiency of wireless charging and the kWh cost of electricity in an ICE.
rblatz 5y ago
Magnets

gumby 5y ago

> Apple's timing with the lighting port wasn't great, with it arriving just before USB-C, and I imagine they're very reluctant to change the port on their phones because people already have lightning cables everywhere. Apple was on the USB-design committee (and lightning experience informed the design) and knew all the timing. The standard wasn’t even finalized for quite some time after Apple started shipping lightning. Lightning has now been around longer than the 30-pin connector, I really don’t understand Apple’s reluctance. I go of my way to by Type C devices for simplicity’s sake, though still have to travel with micro-A, Type C, lightning, and a special watch charger, grr. At least I have only one type of power brick.